LACHANCE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

LACHANCE v. State

318 S.W.3d 788, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1147, 2010 WL 3398420

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 31, 2010·No. ED 93451·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

*789 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leland LaChance appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

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

*789 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leland LaChance appeals from the motion court’s denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence filed pursuant to Rule 24.035. 1 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the motion court is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

LACHANCE v. State, 318 S.W.3d 788, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1147, 2010 WL 3398420 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

318 S.W.3d 788 (LACHANCE v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related