Cummings v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cummings v. State

860 S.W.2d 395, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1388, 1993 WL 335377

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 7, 1993·No. No. 63282·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sterling Cummings, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgments of conviction which movant sought to vacate were for forgery, stealing from a person, and the fraudulent use of a credit device. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years, seven years, and one year.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sterling Cummings, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The judgments of conviction which movant sought to vacate were for forgery, stealing from a person, and the fraudulent use of a credit device. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven years, seven years, and one year.

The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cummings v. State, 860 S.W.2d 395, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1388, 1993 WL 335377 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

860 S.W.2d 395 (Cummings v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.