Spicuzza v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Spicuzza v. State

862 S.W.2d 390, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417, 1993 WL 344333

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Spicuzza v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1201 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 14, 1993·No. No. 63035·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after 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 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 the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after 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 furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Spicuzza v. State, 862 S.W.2d 390, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1417, 1993 WL 344333 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

862 S.W.2d 390 (Spicuzza v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.