WURTZBERGER v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

WURTZBERGER v. State

355 S.W.3d 568, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1712, 2011 WL 6835246

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 27, 2011

DocketED 96119

StatusPublished

This text of 355 S.W.3d 568 (WURTZBERGER 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

WURTZBERGER v. State, 355 S.W.3d 568, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1712, 2011 WL 6835246 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Bryan Wurtzberger appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Wurtzber-ger’s motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial 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.

Bryan Wurtzberger appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Wurtzber-ger’s motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

355 S.W.3d 568, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1712, 2011 WL 6835246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wurtzberger-v-state-moctapp-2011.