Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. State

849 S.W.2d 738, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 456, 1993 WL 88092

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 30, 1993·No. No. 61998·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after a Luleff 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 [739]*739for this 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 29.15 motion after a Luleff 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 [739]*739for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hill v. State, 849 S.W.2d 738, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 456, 1993 WL 88092 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

849 S.W.2d 738 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.