Hardy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hardy v. State

778 S.W.2d 836, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1295, 1989 WL 105671

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 12, 1989·No. No. 56022·Published

Opinion

ORDER

Movant appeals from that part of a judgment, entered after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 27.26 motion claim that his plea was involuntary because counsel was ineffective. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have 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

Movant appeals from that part of a judgment, entered after an evidentiary hearing, denying his Rule 27.26 motion claim that his plea was involuntary because counsel was ineffective. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have 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).

Hardy v. State, 778 S.W.2d 836, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1295, 1989 WL 105671 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

778 S.W.2d 836 (Hardy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.