Riefle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Riefle v. State

863 S.W.2d 383, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 1993 WL 344332

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 1993·No. No. 63371·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been fur'nished 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 the denial of his Rule 24.-035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. The parties have been fur'nished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Riefle v. State, 863 S.W.2d 383, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 1993 WL 344332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

863 S.W.2d 383 (Riefle v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.