Bonstell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Bonstell v. State

784 S.W.2d 239, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1792, 1989 WL 150280

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 12, 1989·No. No. 56461·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 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 [240]*240for 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 24.035 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 [240]*240for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Bonstell v. State, 784 S.W.2d 239, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1792, 1989 WL 150280 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

784 S.W.2d 239 (Bonstell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.