Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

41 S.W.3d 16

Brownridge v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 16, 2001

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2001-01-16

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 2004

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Brownridge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-01-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Jerome Brownridge (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without a hearing. We previously affirmed Movant’s convictions for second degree burglary, section 569.170, RSMo 1994, and felony stealing, section 570.030, RSMo 1994. State v. Brownridge, 956 S.W.2d 420 (Mo.App. E.D.1997).

¶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 for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

/41/sw3d/16 · .json · Public domain