From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
May 6, 2003
105 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)

Opinion

No. ED 81232

May 6, 2003

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Honorable Lucy D. Rauch.

Mary S. Choi, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Karen Louise Kramer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Paul J. Simon, P.J. and Gary M. Gaertner, Sr. and Kathianne Knaup Crane, JJ.


[THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]


ORDER


Kenneth Howard appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

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 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).


Summaries of

Howard v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two
May 6, 2003
105 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)
Case details for

Howard v. State

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH HOWARD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

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

Date published: May 6, 2003

Citations

105 S.W.3d 509 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)