History
  • No items yet
midpage
Ruth v. State
2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2006
|
Check Treatment
202 S.W.3d 638 (2006)

PHILLIP RUTH, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. WD 65371.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

August 1, 2006.

Phillip Anthony Ruth, Appellant Acting Pro Se — Bowling Green, MO.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Esq., Attorney for Respondent — Jefferson City, MO.

Before: Smart, P.J., Ulrich and Hardwick, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Phillip Ruth appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 74.06 motion to re-open post-conviction proceedings. Because Ruth's motion failed to state a proper claim for relief under Rule 74.06, we affirm the motion court's judgment.

No precedential purpose would be served by a published opinion, however, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision. AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).

Case Details

Case Name: Ruth v. State
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Aug 1, 2006
Citation: 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1175
Docket Number: WD 65371
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.