Renner v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Renner v. State

807 S.W.2d 123, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 214, 1991 WL 15408

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 13, 1991·No. No. 55756·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the allegations in his motion, the transcript of his evidentiary hearing, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Those findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion.

The judgment of the motion court 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 appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

We have reviewed the allegations in his motion, the transcript of his evidentiary hearing, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. Those findings of fact and conclusions of law are fully supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion.

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Renner v. State, 807 S.W.2d 123, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 214, 1991 WL 15408 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

807 S.W.2d 123 (Renner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.