Murphy v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Murphy v. State

726 S.W.2d 439, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3613

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Murphy v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 1987·No. No. 14806·Published

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Movant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought to vacate that conviction by a motion under Rule 27.26. Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals.

Movant contended that the state suppressed evidence of statements that a witness made “exonerating” him. Movant had the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). Movant and his trial attorney were the only witnesses. The trial court determined that movant had not met that burden. Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

The judgment of the trial court was based on findings of fact which were not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Movant was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought to vacate that conviction by a motion under Rule 27.26. Following an evidentiary hearing the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appeals.

Movant contended that the state suppressed evidence of statements that a witness made “exonerating” him. Movant had the burden of establishing his grounds for relief by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 27.26(f). Movant and his trial attorney were the only witnesses. The trial court determined that movant had not met that burden. Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

The judgment of the trial court was based on findings of fact which were not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. A further opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Murphy v. State, 726 S.W.2d 439, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3613 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

726 S.W.2d 439 (Murphy v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.