Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Matthew K. Holleran, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/matthew-k-holleran-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentresponde-17415
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17415
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Matthew+K.+Holleran%2C+Movant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Matthew K. Holleran, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71743
Handdown Date:  07/22/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. James R. Hartenbach
Counsel for Appellant:  Dave Hemingway, Public Defender
Counsel for Respondent:  Cheryl A. Caponegro, Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Reinhard, P.J., Karohl and Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur.
Opinion:
DIVISION SIX
O R D E R
Movant appeals the dismissal, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. 
We affirm.  The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would 
have no precedential value.  The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth 
the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.