Dee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Dee v. State

787 S.W.2d 869, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 562, 1990 WL 41657

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 10, 1990·No. No. 56102·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial after an evi-dentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate sentence We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve 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 the denial after an evi-dentiary hearing of his Rule 29.15 motion to vacate sentence We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve 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).

Dee v. State, 787 S.W.2d 869, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 562, 1990 WL 41657 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

787 S.W.2d 869 (Dee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.