Scott v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Scott v. State

792 S.W.2d 32, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 808, 1990 WL 68145

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 22, 1990·No. No. 56187·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion for post conviction relief. As sentence was pronounced and the Rule 27.26 motion filed before January 1, 1988, all proceedings continue to be bound by that rule. Hensley v. State, 753 S.W.2d 88 (Mo.App.E.D.1988).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have- been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion for post conviction relief. As sentence was pronounced and the Rule 27.26 motion filed before January 1, 1988, all proceedings continue to be bound by that rule. Hensley v. State, 753 S.W.2d 88 (Mo.App.E.D.1988).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have- been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Scott v. State, 792 S.W.2d 32, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 808, 1990 WL 68145 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

792 S.W.2d 32 (Scott v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related