Biddy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Biddy v. State

789 S.W.2d 134, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 510, 1990 WL 37540

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 1990·No. No. 57083·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. 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

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. 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).

Biddy v. State, 789 S.W.2d 134, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 510, 1990 WL 37540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

789 S.W.2d 134 (Biddy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.