Calmese v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Calmese v. State

787 S.W.2d 848, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 1990 WL 37539

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 1990·No. No. 57084·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 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 27.26 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).

Calmese v. State, 787 S.W.2d 848, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 1990 WL 37539 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

787 S.W.2d 848 (Calmese v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.