Wingo v. State

366 S.W.3d 87, 2012 WL 1623593, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 624
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 9, 2012·No. ED 97032·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dwayne Wingo appeals from the motion court’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order (judgment) denying his Rule 29.15 Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential or precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Wingo v. State, 366 S.W.3d 87, 2012 WL 1623593, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

366 S.W.3d 87 (Wingo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BREADNER v. State
366 S.W.3d 87 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)