Banks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Banks v. State

796 S.W.2d 114, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1410, 1990 WL 138362

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 1990·No. No. 55633·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the motion court’s order as movant has failed to show that the findings, conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j). Because it would serve no precedential purpose, we affirm the order without written opinion under Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order.

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 without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the motion court’s order as movant has failed to show that the findings, conclusions and judgment were clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j). Because it would serve no precedential purpose, we affirm the order without written opinion under Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order.

Banks v. State, 796 S.W.2d 114, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1410, 1990 WL 138362 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

796 S.W.2d 114 (Banks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.