Hart v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hart v. State

789 S.W.2d 135, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 504, 1990 WL 37544

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 3, 1990·No. No. 57043·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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).

Hart v. State, 789 S.W.2d 135, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 504, 1990 WL 37544 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

789 S.W.2d 135 (Hart v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.