ERRASTI v. State
310 S.W.3d 753, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 676, 2010 WL 1976760
Opinion
ORDER
Movant, Pelayo Errasti, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ERRASTI v. State, 310 S.W.3d 753, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 676, 2010 WL 1976760 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
310 S.W.3d 753 (ERRASTI v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Miller v. DUPREE
310 S.W.3d 753 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)