Hicks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

789 S.W.2d 85, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 1990 WL 29811

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hicks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 204 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 1990·No. No. 55509·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion to vacate sentence after an evidentiary hearing. We [86]*86affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve 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Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion to vacate sentence after an evidentiary hearing. We [86]*86affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve 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).

Hicks v. State, 789 S.W.2d 85, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 1990 WL 29811 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

789 S.W.2d 85 (Hicks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.