Woods v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

331 S.W.3d 722, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 220, 2011 WL 590348

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2011

DocketED 94909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 331 S.W.3d 722 (Woods 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

Woods v. State, 331 S.W.3d 722, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 220, 2011 WL 590348 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Woods appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an eviden-tiary hearing. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Terry Woods appeals from the judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 without an eviden-tiary hearing. The motion court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value and we affirm by written order. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 S.W.3d 722, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 220, 2011 WL 590348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woods-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack