Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

400 S.W.3d 838, 2013 WL 1966227, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 578

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 14, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98824

StatusPublished

This text of 400 S.W.3d 838 (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, 400 S.W.3d 838, 2013 WL 1966227, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 578 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ernest C. Williams (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion to re-open his Rule 27.26 post-conviction proceedings. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for o.ur 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.

Ernest C. Williams (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his motion to re-open his Rule 27.26 post-conviction proceedings. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for o.ur decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 S.W.3d 838, 2013 WL 1966227, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-2013.