Wright v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wright v. State

43 S.W.3d 907, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 812, 2001 WL 506842

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wright v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1978 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 2001·No. No. ED 78172·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sidney Wright, pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property in violation of section 570.080, RSMo 2000. He now appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Movant, Sidney Wright, pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property in violation of section 570.080, RSMo 2000. He now appeals the judgment denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Wright v. State, 43 S.W.3d 907, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 812, 2001 WL 506842 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

43 S.W.3d 907 (Wright v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.