Harrod v. State

513 S.W.2d 471, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1680
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 19, 1974·No. No. 9667·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The sufficiency of the complaint, verification of the information, and sufficiency of the trial evidence, are not subject to attack in Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceedings. The judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Harrod v. State, 513 S.W.2d 471, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1680 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

513 S.W.2d 471 (Harrod v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Achter v. State
545 S.W.2d 83 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)