State v. Anderson
883 S.W.2d 112, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1437, 1994 WL 493911
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Anderson. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1445 →
Opinion
ORDER
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
State v. Anderson, 883 S.W.2d 112, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1437, 1994 WL 493911 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
883 S.W.2d 112 (State v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.