Lewis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Lewis v. State

798 S.W.2d 723, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 937, 1990 WL 198065

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lewis v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 214 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 19, 1990·No. No. 56968·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robert Lewis a/k/a Stanley Johnson, appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 27.26 with an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties 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.

Appellant, Robert Lewis a/k/a Stanley Johnson, appeals from the denial of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence pursuant to Rule 27.26 with an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value and, therefore, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b). A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Lewis v. State, 798 S.W.2d 723, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 937, 1990 WL 198065 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

798 S.W.2d 723 (Lewis v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.