Stack v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stack v. State

768 S.W.2d 203, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 257, 1989 WL 16405

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 28, 1989·No. No. 54115·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment on a Rule 27.26 motion. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j).

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.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment on a Rule 27.26 motion. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j).

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).

Stack v. State, 768 S.W.2d 203, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 257, 1989 WL 16405 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

768 S.W.2d 203 (Stack v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.