Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

9 S.W.3d 722, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 86, 2000 WL 29911

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76322

StatusPublished

This text of 9 S.W.3d 722 (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, 9 S.W.3d 722, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 86, 2000 WL 29911 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Chickila Williams, appeals from the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without a 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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We [723]*723affirm 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, Chickila Williams, appeals from the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without a 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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We [723]*723affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 S.W.3d 722, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 86, 2000 WL 29911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-2000.