Arrington v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Arrington v. State

765 S.W.2d 735, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 318, 1989 WL 21760

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 7, 1989·No. No. 55123·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant was convicted by a jury of first degree robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed in State v. Arrington, 721 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1987). Movant sought to vacate his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, but his motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing.

We find the motion court’s judgment was based on findings of fact not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with 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 the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant was convicted by a jury of first degree robbery and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed in State v. Arrington, 721 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App.1987). Movant sought to vacate his conviction on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel, but his motion was denied following an evidentiary hearing.

We find the motion court’s judgment was based on findings of fact not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Arrington v. State, 765 S.W.2d 735, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 318, 1989 WL 21760 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

765 S.W.2d 735 (Arrington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related