State v. Cruesoe

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cruesoe

800 S.W.2d 117, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1646, 1990 WL 175723

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 13, 1990·No. No. 57570·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have studied the trial transcript and legal file on direct appeal together with the motion hearing transcript and legal file. We find the factual statements and legal analysis of the issues in the state’s brief to be supported by the records and the law. Judgment 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.

Movant appeals denial of his Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have studied the trial transcript and legal file on direct appeal together with the motion hearing transcript and legal file. We find the factual statements and legal analysis of the issues in the state’s brief to be supported by the records and the law. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.-16(b).

State v. Cruesoe, 800 S.W.2d 117, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1646, 1990 WL 175723 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

800 S.W.2d 117 (State v. Cruesoe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.