Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Missouri Court of Appeals, 2000

Herret v. State

Herret v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided February 22, 2000 · Crane, Dowd, Sullivan
21 S.W.3d 865; 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 267; 2000 WL 198976 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Herret v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Michael Herret1, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits 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 find the motion court’s judgment 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).

. Movant is also referred to as Michael Her-ret-el in the briefs and some legal documents.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.

↑