Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

36 S.W.3d 409, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 36, 2001 WL 37864

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 January 16, 2001·No. No. ED 77643·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tinya Williams (“Movant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum, 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.

Tinya Williams (“Movant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 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 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Williams v. State, 36 S.W.3d 409, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 36, 2001 WL 37864 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

36 S.W.3d 409 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.