Pitchford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pitchford v. State

759 S.W.2d 284, 1988 WL 87189

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 28, 1988·No. No. 53858·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Jerry Pitchford, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 (repealed effective January 1, 1988) motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The judgment of the motion court is based on comprehensive findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment 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Movant, Jerry Pitchford, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 (repealed effective January 1, 1988) motion after an evi-dentiary hearing. The judgment of the motion court is based on comprehensive findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

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

Pitchford v. State, 759 S.W.2d 284, 1988 WL 87189 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

759 S.W.2d 284 (Pitchford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.