AKRIGHT v. STATE, 370 S.W.3d 903 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco121030000715
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 14, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Duane Akright appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Akright's request for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed unde
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Duane Akright appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Akright's request for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Duane Akright appeals the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Akright's request for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
Source: Leagle
