Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

271 S.W.3d 61, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1530, 2008 WL 5447522

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Young v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1615 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 18, 2008·No. ED 90318·Published

Opinion

*62 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Tarron Young, appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order and judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2). '

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

*62 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The movant, Tarron Young, appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no clear error. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

The motion court’s order and judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b)(2). '

Young v. State, 271 S.W.3d 61, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1530, 2008 WL 5447522 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

271 S.W.3d 61 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.