From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven
Jun 19, 2001
53 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

No. ED76907

FILED: June 19, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS HONORABLE BRENDAN RYAN.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon; Attorney General, Gregory L. Barnes; Assistant Attorney General, Post Office Box 899; Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899 Attorney for Appellant-Cross-Respondent

Michael J. Gorla, 720 Olive Street; St. Louis, MO 63101, Attorney for Respondent-Cross-Appellant

Before Hoff, C.J. and Crandall, J. and Teitelman, J.



ORDER


The State of Missouri (State) appeals the motion court's judgment to the extent it grants Anthony Payne's (Movant) Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Movant cross-appeals the judgment to the extent it denies portions of his motion. The two appeals were consolidated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error without merit. The motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Payne v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Seven
Jun 19, 2001
53 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Payne v. State

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY PAYNE, Movant-Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI…

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

Date published: Jun 19, 2001

Citations

53 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001)