Houston v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Houston v. State

787 S.W.2d 823, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 431, 1990 WL 29840

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Houston v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 506 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 1990·No. No. 57107·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. 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, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. 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).

Houston v. State, 787 S.W.2d 823, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 431, 1990 WL 29840 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

787 S.W.2d 823 (Houston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.