State v. Anderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Anderson

883 S.W.2d 112, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1437, 1994 WL 493911

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 1994

DocketNos. 63471, 64845

StatusPublished

This text of 883 S.W.2d 112 (State v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Anderson, 883 S.W.2d 112, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1437, 1994 WL 493911 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree burglary and stealing over $150, and the motion court denied his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find the findings of fact issued by the motion court are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). Further, we find no precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion and affirm by written order. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of first degree burglary and stealing over $150, and the motion court denied his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find the findings of fact issued by the motion court are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). Further, we find no precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion and affirm by written order. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

883 S.W.2d 112, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1437, 1994 WL 493911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-moctapp-1994.