Woods v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woods v. State

531 S.W.3d 108

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2017·No. No. ED 104997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Woods appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Woods appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Woods v. State, 531 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

531 S.W.3d 108 (Woods v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related