Woods v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

122 S.W.3d 646, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717, 2003 WL 22434348

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Woods v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 28, 2003·No. No. ED 82623·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Stephen D. Woods (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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.

Stephen D. Woods (“Movant”) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 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 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Woods v. State, 122 S.W.3d 646, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717, 2003 WL 22434348 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

122 S.W.3d 646 (Woods v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.