Hodges v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hodges v. State

829 S.W.2d 611, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 1992 WL 54415

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hodges v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1348 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 1992·No. No. 60441·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary [612]*612hearing. 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 her Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary [612]*612hearing. 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).

Hodges v. State, 829 S.W.2d 611, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 528, 1992 WL 54415 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

829 S.W.2d 611 (Hodges v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.