Cross v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cross v. State

879 S.W.2d 617, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 745, 1994 WL 174407

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cross v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1540 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 10, 1994·No. No. 63754·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The motion court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). An opinion in this case would have no prece-dential value; therefore we affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision 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.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The motion court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). An opinion in this case would have no prece-dential value; therefore we affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Cross v. State, 879 S.W.2d 617, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 745, 1994 WL 174407 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

879 S.W.2d 617 (Cross v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.