Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

986 S.W.2d 521, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 197

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1999

DocketNo. 74398

StatusPublished

This text of 986 S.W.2d 521 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 986 S.W.2d 521, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 197 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Kenny Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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 Kenny Williams appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 S.W.2d 521, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-1999.