Adkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Adkins v. State

823 S.W.2d 164, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, 1992 WL 17897

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 4, 1992·No. No. 59795·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Quintín Adkins, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript of the guilty plea and the legal file and find no error on the part of the trial court. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Quintín Adkins, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the transcript of the guilty plea and the legal file and find no error on the part of the trial court. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Adkins v. State, 823 S.W.2d 164, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 153, 1992 WL 17897 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

823 S.W.2d 164 (Adkins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.