State v. Howard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Howard

880 S.W.2d 601, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 1994 WL 283200

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Howard. Read the opinion of the Court — 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 360 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 28, 1994·No. Nos. 63744, 65002·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Howard appeals his conviction for first degree burglary, in violation of § 569.-160 RSMo (1986), and two counts of third degree assault, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 565.070 RSMo (1986). Howard also appeals from an order denying his 29.15 motion on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Ride 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Howard appeals his conviction for first degree burglary, in violation of § 569.-160 RSMo (1986), and two counts of third degree assault, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 565.070 RSMo (1986). Howard also appeals from an order denying his 29.15 motion on the merits without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Ride 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Howard, 880 S.W.2d 601, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1083, 1994 WL 283200 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

880 S.W.2d 601 (State v. Howard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.