Woolfolk v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woolfolk v. State

362 S.W.3d 489, 2012 WL 944612, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 377

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 2012·No. ED 97272·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Woolfolk, Sr., appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(h), (k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Rule 84.16(b). Mo. R. Civ. P. (2011).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P. (2011), unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Woolfolk, Sr., appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we conclude the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief was not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(h), (k). An extended opinion would have no precedential 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 Rule 84.16(b). Mo. R. Civ. P. (2011).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P. (2011), unless otherwise indicated.

Woolfolk v. State, 362 S.W.3d 489, 2012 WL 944612, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 377 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

362 S.W.3d 489 (Woolfolk v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related