Combs v. State, 14 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
Combs v. State, 14 S.W.3d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ANGELA MEGAN GUINN (moctapp, 2014-12-04)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ANGELA MEGAN GUINN (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Clair, 262 S.W.2d 25 (Mo.1953), or when someone holds a gun to the defendant’s head, see e.g., Crenshaw, 14 S.W.3d at 178.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Coen (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
State v. Crenshaw, 14 S.W.3d 175, 177 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Reed
Mo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
However, we note that "[a] defendant is entitled to an instruction on any theory his evidence tends to establish.” State v. Crenshaw, 14 S.W.3d 175, 177 (Mo.App.
cited Cited "see" State v. Whitley
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Crenshaw, 14 S.W.3d 175, 177 (Mo.App.E.D.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jacques COMBS
v.
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent
No. ED 75610.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Feb 1, 2000.
14 S.W.3d 175
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Krista D. Boston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Crane, Dowd, Sullivan.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jacques Combs, movant, appeals from the judgment denying on the merits his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the motion court’s judgment is based on findings and conclusions that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).