Nichols v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Nichols v. State

871 S.W.2d 1, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 792, 1993 WL 180435

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 1, 1993·No. No. 62596·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. Movant pled guilty to stealing, third offense, in violation of § 570.030 RSMo 1986 and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to seven years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to the sentences movant was then serving.

The motion court’s findings are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with 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 for postconviction relief. Movant pled guilty to stealing, third offense, in violation of § 570.030 RSMo 1986 and was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to seven years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively to the sentences movant was then serving.

The motion court’s findings are not clearly erroneous, and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Nichols v. State, 871 S.W.2d 1, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 792, 1993 WL 180435 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

871 S.W.2d 1 (Nichols v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.