Hicks v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

851 S.W.2d 689, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 390, 1993 WL 73913

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 16, 1993·No. No. 62062·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pled guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree and one count of attempted stealing over $150. He was sentenced as a Class X offender. He appeals the denial of his 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing and from his sentence. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.-25(b). No error of law appears; the motion court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant pled guilty to one count of burglary in the second degree and one count of attempted stealing over $150. He was sentenced as a Class X offender. He appeals the denial of his 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing and from his sentence. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.-25(b). No error of law appears; the motion court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only.

Hicks v. State, 851 S.W.2d 689, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 390, 1993 WL 73913 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

851 S.W.2d 689 (Hicks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.