Christensen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Christensen v. State

764 S.W.2d 120, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1745, 1988 WL 134971

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 1988·No. No. WD 40541·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

From an evidentiary hearing denying his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion, the mov-ant appeals. His claims of insufficiency of the information, fatal variance between information and verdict director, ineffective assistance of counsel, use of perjured testimony, insufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court’s failure to make requisite findings and conclusions are all denied. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

From an evidentiary hearing denying his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion, the mov-ant appeals. His claims of insufficiency of the information, fatal variance between information and verdict director, ineffective assistance of counsel, use of perjured testimony, insufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court’s failure to make requisite findings and conclusions are all denied. Rule 84.16(b).

Christensen v. State, 764 S.W.2d 120, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 1745, 1988 WL 134971 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

764 S.W.2d 120 (Christensen v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.