Phillips v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Phillips v. State

836 S.W.2d 97, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 1992 WL 219194

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Phillips v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 994 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 15, 1992·No. No. 61044·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Movant has previously filed a Rule 27.26 motion. Furthermore, a Rule 29.15 motion may not be used to present newly discovered evidence.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The denial of Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion is affirmed. Movant has previously filed a Rule 27.26 motion. Furthermore, a Rule 29.15 motion may not be used to present newly discovered evidence.

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value.

Affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Phillips v. State, 836 S.W.2d 97, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1474, 1992 WL 219194 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

836 S.W.2d 97 (Phillips v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.