Williams v. State

233 S.W.3d 796, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1318, 2007 WL 2772984
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1703
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 2007·No. ED 89213·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sandy Williams appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 1 motion for postconviction relief. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo.banc 2006). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2006, unless otherwise indicated.

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

Williams v. State, 233 S.W.3d 796, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1318, 2007 WL 2772984 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

233 S.W.3d 796 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anderson v. State
196 S.W.3d 28 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2006)