Morgan v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Morgan v. State

782 S.W.2d 717, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629, 1989 WL 140004

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 21, 1989·No. No. 56090·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have 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 of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have 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).

Morgan v. State, 782 S.W.2d 717, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1629, 1989 WL 140004 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

782 S.W.2d 717 (Morgan v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.