Crider v. State
Crider v. State
Opinion of the Court
Ernest Crider (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief (motion) without an evidentiary hearing.
Movant pleaded guilty,
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to 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).
. Movant pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.