Woods v. State

298 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1425, 2009 WL 3188430
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 6, 2009·No. ED 91830·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*138 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Henry Woods appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying, following an evi-dentiary hearing, his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 29.15. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). 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 rale references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2008, unless otherwise indicated.

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

Woods v. State, 298 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1425, 2009 WL 3188430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

298 S.W.3d 137 (Woods v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Turpin
298 S.W.3d 137 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)