Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 S.W.3d 95

Chaney v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 22, 2000

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2000-08-22

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2011

8 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-08-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.

¶3The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

¶4We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

/31/sw3d/95 · .json · Public domain