Coleman-Bey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Coleman-Bey v. State

792 S.W.2d 890, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 932, 1990 WL 82876

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 19, 1990·No. No. 57117·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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 of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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).

Coleman-Bey v. State, 792 S.W.2d 890, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 932, 1990 WL 82876 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

792 S.W.2d 890 (Coleman-Bey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.