Meshell v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Meshell v. State

780 S.W.2d 125, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1601, 1989 WL 136710

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 14, 1989·No. No. 55868·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would [126]*126have 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 24.035 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would [126]*126have 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).

Meshell v. State, 780 S.W.2d 125, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1601, 1989 WL 136710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

780 S.W.2d 125 (Meshell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.