Stanley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stanley v. State

848 S.W.2d 14, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1825, 1992 WL 358101

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stanley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 449 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 8, 1992·No. No. 61596·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential 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 from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Stanley v. State, 848 S.W.2d 14, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1825, 1992 WL 358101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

848 S.W.2d 14 (Stanley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.