Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 S.W.3d 64

Anderson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 15, 2000

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2000-08-15

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2019

14 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-08-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Carl Anderson, defendant, appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-eonviction relief after a hearing. We 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 for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

/31/sw3d/64 · .json · Public domain