Johnson v. State, ED 104034
| Decision Date | 28 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 104034,ED 104034 |
| Citation | 514 S.W.3d 646 (Mem) |
| Parties | Santi JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kristina Starke Olson, Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before Robert M. Clayton III, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
ORDER
Santi Johnson appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Johnson v. Strange
...per curiam order accompanied by a memorandum sent to the parties only setting forth the reasons for the order. Johnson v. State, No. ED 104034, 514 S.W.3d 646 (Mo. App. 2017), [ECF No. 18-9]II. Grounds Raised In his § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner raises six grounds fo......