Cole v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cole v. State

871 S.W.2d 74, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, 1994 WL 4284

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cole v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 505 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 11, 1994·No. No. 63758·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We find the findings of fact issued by the motion court in denying Movant’s Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing were not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). Further, we find no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Therefore, we affirm by written order. A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

We find the findings of fact issued by the motion court in denying Movant’s Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing were not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). Further, we find no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(5).

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Therefore, we affirm by written order. A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Cole v. State, 871 S.W.2d 74, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, 1994 WL 4284 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

871 S.W.2d 74 (Cole v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.