Honeycutt v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Honeycutt v. State

801 S.W.2d 416, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1674, 1990 WL 178815

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 20, 1990·No. No. 58061·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from' the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion challenging his guilty pleas as involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court [417]*417are 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 his Rule 27.26 motion challenging his guilty pleas as involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court [417]*417are 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).

Honeycutt v. State, 801 S.W.2d 416, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1674, 1990 WL 178815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

801 S.W.2d 416 (Honeycutt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.