Woolfolk v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Woolfolk v. State

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2012

DocketED 97272

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 362 S.W.3d 489 (Woolfolk 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

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

362 S.W.3d 489, 2012 WL 944612, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 377, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolfolk-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack