From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grizzle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
Sep 12, 2000
27 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. ED77251

FILED: September 12, 2000

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARION COUNTY, HONORABLE ROBERT M. CLAYTON, II.

Nancy A. McKerrow, 3402 Buttonwood, Columbia, Missouri 65201-3722, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon Stacy Anderson, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899, for respondent

Before Clifford H. Ahrens, P.J., William H. Crandall, Jr., J. and James R. Dowd, J.



ORDER


Robert Grizzle (Movant) files this appeal challenging the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after a hearing. On appeal, Movant contends the motion court failed to enter sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 24.035(j). 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 24.035(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).


Summaries of

Grizzle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
Sep 12, 2000
27 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Grizzle v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT E. GRIZZLE, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two

Date published: Sep 12, 2000

Citations

27 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000)