Bereuter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bereuter v. State

890 S.W.2d 417, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 21, 1995 WL 6641

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 1995·No. No. 65850·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his “Motion to Correct Sentence by Order Nunc Pro Tunc”. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his “Motion to Correct Sentence by Order Nunc Pro Tunc”. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error are without merit; the judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bereuter v. State, 890 S.W.2d 417, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 21, 1995 WL 6641 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

890 S.W.2d 417 (Bereuter v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.