Caruthers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Caruthers v. State

891 S.W.2d 476, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1815, 1994 WL 652493

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 22, 1994·No. No. 65685·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them 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 Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief which was denied without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Caruthers v. State, 891 S.W.2d 476, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1815, 1994 WL 652493 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

891 S.W.2d 476 (Caruthers v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.