Rodriquez v. State
Rodriquez v. State
Opinion of the Court
Robert Rodriguez
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Movant's Appellate Counsel spells Movant's name as "Rodriqez," in his brief, but all court documents spell Movant's name "Rodriguez." We will use the latter spelling.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.