Houghton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Houghton v. State

869 S.W.2d 856, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 162, 1994 WL 23759

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 1, 1994·No. No. 64692·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donald Houghton, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donald Houghton, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Houghton v. State, 869 S.W.2d 856, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 162, 1994 WL 23759 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

869 S.W.2d 856 (Houghton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.