Westergaard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Westergaard v. State

571 S.W.3d 701

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 16, 2019·No. No. ED 106833·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The movant, Mark Westergaard, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief relying on State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 24.035. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court's judgment denying the movant's Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

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

PER CURIAM

The movant, Mark Westergaard, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief relying on State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 24.035. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the motion court's judgment denying the movant's Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

Westergaard v. State, 571 S.W.3d 701 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

571 S.W.3d 701 (Westergaard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related