Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

131 S.W.3d 875, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 574, 2004 WL 834432

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83473

StatusPublished

This text of 131 S.W.3d 875 (Young 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

Young v. State, 131 S.W.3d 875, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 574, 2004 WL 834432 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Lee Young appeals the judgment dismissing his “Motion To Reopen Rule 27.26 Post Conviction Motion Pursuant To Rule 27.26 Sub-Sections (c) & (d).” We previously affirmed his conviction for rape, State v. Young, 668 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1984), and affirmed the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief, Young v. State, 841 S.W.2d 776 (Mo.App.1992). He now seeks to raise allegedly newly discovered grounds for post conviction relief.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum 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.

Donald Lee Young appeals the judgment dismissing his “Motion To Reopen Rule 27.26 Post Conviction Motion Pursuant To Rule 27.26 Sub-Sections (c) & (d).” We previously affirmed his conviction for rape, State v. Young, 668 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1984), and affirmed the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief, Young v. State, 841 S.W.2d 776 (Mo.App.1992). He now seeks to raise allegedly newly discovered grounds for post conviction relief.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the motion court did not clearly err. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 S.W.3d 875, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 574, 2004 WL 834432, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack