Lee v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lee v. State

830 S.W.2d 491, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 624, 1992 WL 78697

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lee v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 691 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 14, 1992·No. No. 60224·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Melvin Lee, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error on the part of the motion court. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(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, Melvin Lee, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error on the part of the motion court. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Lee v. State, 830 S.W.2d 491, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 624, 1992 WL 78697 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

830 S.W.2d 491 (Lee v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.