McCall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCall v. State

838 S.W.2d 26, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1208, 1992 WL 174185

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 28, 1992·No. No. 60396·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment of the motion court 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.

Affirmed.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment of the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

McCall v. State, 838 S.W.2d 26, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1208, 1992 WL 174185 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

838 S.W.2d 26 (McCall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.