Beal v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Beal v. State

774 S.W.2d 567, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138, 1989 WL 88927

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 8, 1989·No. No. 55635·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Beal v. State, 774 S.W.2d 567, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1138, 1989 WL 88927 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

774 S.W.2d 567 (Beal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.