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

Case: Nathaniel Jefferson, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: other
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/nathaniel-jefferson-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-17493
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17493
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=Nathaniel+Jefferson%2C+Movant-Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent-Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=4&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: text; score: 4; evidence: text: state of missouri)

---
## 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:  Nathaniel Jefferson, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71986
Handdown Date:  08/26/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant:  Elaine A. Marten
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur.
Opinion:

ORDER
Nathaniel Jefferson (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. 
We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without 
merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 
However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts 
and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with 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.