Hahn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hahn v. State

725 S.W.2d 168

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 24, 1987·No. No. 52024·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion challenged his three consecutive sentences of five years after having pled guilty to forgery, stealing and second degree burglary.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed 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 from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion challenged his three consecutive sentences of five years after having pled guilty to forgery, stealing and second degree burglary.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hahn v. State, 725 S.W.2d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

725 S.W.2d 168 (Hahn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.