Williams v. State

29 S.W.3d 840, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2000 WL 1577095
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 2375
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2000·No. No. ED 77385·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Williams appeals from a judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). 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

Williams v. State, 29 S.W.3d 840, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1574, 2000 WL 1577095 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

29 S.W.3d 840 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.