State v. Dudley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dudley

870 S.W.2d 477, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1994 WL 50128

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

DocketNos. 62366, 64160

StatusPublished

This text of 870 S.W.2d 477 (State v. Dudley) 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. Dudley, 870 S.W.2d 477, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1994 WL 50128 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his jury conviction for sale of a controlled substance and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm

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). We find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision 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 his jury conviction for sale of a controlled substance and the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm

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). We find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion and affirm by summary order. Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 S.W.2d 477, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 296, 1994 WL 50128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dudley-moctapp-1994.