Hoskins v. State
867 S.W.2d 720, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 26, 1994 WL 4279
Opinion
ORDER
We find the motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s motion for postcon-viction relief as successive and untimely. Rule 29.15(k) and (m). We further find an opinion in this case would have no prece-dential purpose and affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hoskins v. State, 867 S.W.2d 720, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 26, 1994 WL 4279 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
867 S.W.2d 720 (Hoskins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.