Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

14 S.W.3d 725

Glass v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 4, 2000

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2000-04-04

Relies on State v. Glass

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-04-04

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 2022

4 state decisions

20200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Wilbur Glass (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after a hearing. We have previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for two counts of the class C felony of forgery in violation of section 570.090, RSMo 1994. State v. Glass, 964 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App. E.D.1998).

¶3We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(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).

/14/sw3d/725 · .json · Public domain