Feager v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Feager v. State

797 S.W.2d 531, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1228, 1990 WL 116089

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 14, 1990·No. No. 57943·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the allegations in his motion, the transcript of his plea of guilty, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Those findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No precedential value would be served by an opinion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with 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 of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the allegations in his motion, the transcript of his plea of guilty, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Those findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No precedential value would be served by an opinion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Feager v. State, 797 S.W.2d 531, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1228, 1990 WL 116089 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

797 S.W.2d 531 (Feager v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.