From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muhammad v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov 20, 2012
386 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)

Opinion

No. ED 97598.

2012-11-20

Mikal MUHAMMAD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Bryan L. Hettenbach, Judge. Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Movant/Appellant. Shaun J. MacKelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent/Respondent.


Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Bryan L. Hettenbach, Judge.
Gwenda R. Robinson, St. Louis, MO, for Movant/Appellant. Shaun J. MacKelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent/Respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

ORDER


PER CURIAM.

Mikal Muhammad appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k); Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691, 693 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).




Summaries of

Muhammad v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Nov 20, 2012
386 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)
Case details for

Muhammad v. State

Case Details

Full title:Mikal MUHAMMAD, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Date published: Nov 20, 2012

Citations

386 S.W.3d 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)