Radford v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Radford v. State

872 S.W.2d 140, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 439, 1994 WL 75830

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 15, 1994·No. No. 64241·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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 from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).

Radford v. State, 872 S.W.2d 140, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 439, 1994 WL 75830 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

872 S.W.2d 140 (Radford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.