Wells v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wells v. State

359 S.W.3d 539, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 202

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96296

StatusPublished

This text of 359 S.W.3d 539 (Wells v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. State, 359 S.W.3d 539, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, George Wells, Jr., appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, George Wells, Jr., appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 539, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-state-moctapp-2012.