Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

477 S.W.3d 1, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 509, 2015 WL 2226351

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101216

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 1 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 477 S.W.3d 1, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 509, 2015 WL 2226351 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Kevin P. Wilson (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Con-[2]*2elusions of Law and Judgment on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request . for Evidentiary Hearing denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief. 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. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating, the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

Kevin P. Wilson (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Con-[2]*2elusions of Law and Judgment on Movant’s Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request . for Evidentiary Hearing denying Movant’s Rule 29.15 claims for post-conviction relief. 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. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating, the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 1, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 509, 2015 WL 2226351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-state-moctapp-2015.