From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE .
May 16, 2017
518 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)

Opinion

ED 104418

05-16-2017

Muhammed WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Andrew E. Zleit, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant. Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.


Andrew E. Zleit, Missouri Public Defender Office, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.

Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Muhammed Watson ("Movant") appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We affirm.

The judgment of the trial court is not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE .
May 16, 2017
518 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)
Case details for

Watson v. State

Case Details

Full title:Muhammed WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE .

Date published: May 16, 2017

Citations

518 S.W.3d 285 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)