Haynes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haynes v. State

708 S.W.2d 305, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3844

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Haynes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4461 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 18, 1986·No. No. 49996·Published

Opinion

[306]*306ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Claiming his counsel had improperly induced him to waive his right to appeal his convictions for second degree burglary (§ 569.170, RSMo. 1978), and stealing without consent (§ 570.030), movant sought relief under Rule 27.26. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court determined mov-ant’s claim had no merit. Movant appeals. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the circuit court’s order overruling mov-ant’s 27.26 motion was not clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j). An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment 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

[306]*306ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Claiming his counsel had improperly induced him to waive his right to appeal his convictions for second degree burglary (§ 569.170, RSMo. 1978), and stealing without consent (§ 570.030), movant sought relief under Rule 27.26. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court determined mov-ant’s claim had no merit. Movant appeals. Having reviewed the record, we conclude the circuit court’s order overruling mov-ant’s 27.26 motion was not clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j). An opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Haynes v. State, 708 S.W.2d 305, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 3844 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

708 S.W.2d 305 (Haynes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.