Abram v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Abram v. State

782 S.W.2d 779, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 1989 WL 147006

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 5, 1989·No. No. 56546·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm.

Movant argues Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) applies for evaluation of his motion. His direct appeal became final in 1982. State v. Abram, 632 S.W.2d 60 (Mo.App.1982). As in Washington v. State, 772 [780] S.W.2d 728, 730 (Mo.App.1989), Batson is inapplicable. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value; therefore, we affirm pursuant to' Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm.

Movant argues Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) applies for evaluation of his motion. His direct appeal became final in 1982. State v. Abram, 632 S.W.2d 60 (Mo.App.1982). As in Washington v. State, 772 [780] S.W.2d 728, 730 (Mo.App.1989), Batson is inapplicable. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value; therefore, we affirm pursuant to' Rule 84.16(b).

Abram v. State, 782 S.W.2d 779, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 1989 WL 147006 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

782 S.W.2d 779 (Abram v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related