Pendergras v. State
797 S.W.2d 793, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 1990 WL 127068
Opinion
ORDER
From denial of a Rule 27.26 (repealed) motion, the movant raises two points: 1) his motion for new trial should have been sustained because of newly discovered evidence, and 2) counsel failed to advise him of the right to a change of judge.
Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pendergras v. State, 797 S.W.2d 793, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 1990 WL 127068 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
797 S.W.2d 793 (Pendergras v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.