Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

280 S.W.3d 101, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 29, 2009 WL 113857

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 January 20, 2009·No. No. ED 91377·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Young appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his “Motion to Re-Open Original Postconviction Case Att’y Daniel Reardon Failed to File an Amended 29.15 Motion” (the Motion). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not err in denying the Motion. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Young appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his “Motion to Re-Open Original Postconviction Case Att’y Daniel Reardon Failed to File an Amended 29.15 Motion” (the Motion). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court did not err in denying the Motion. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Young v. State, 280 S.W.3d 101, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 29, 2009 WL 113857 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

280 S.W.3d 101 (Young v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.