Prince v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Prince v. State

787 S.W.2d 786, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 361, 1990 WL 21192

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 6, 1990·No. No. 56495·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial after an evi-dentiary hearing of his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Rule 27.26 (now repealed). We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to 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Movant appeals the denial after an evi-dentiary hearing of his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to Rule 27.26 (now repealed). We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would serve no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Prince v. State, 787 S.W.2d 786, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 361, 1990 WL 21192 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

787 S.W.2d 786 (Prince v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.