State v. Smalley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smalley

848 S.W.2d 643, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 382, 1993 WL 73682

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 16, 1993·No. Nos. 59887, 62044·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A consolidated appeal. Defendant was charged by indictment with delivering cocaine in violation of § 195.211, RSMo (Supp.1992). He appeals his conviction and twelve-year sentence and the denial, after a hearing, of his 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b). The judgment was supported by substantial evidence and no error of law appears; the motion court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A consolidated appeal. Defendant was charged by indictment with delivering cocaine in violation of § 195.211, RSMo (Supp.1992). He appeals his conviction and twelve-year sentence and the denial, after a hearing, of his 29.15 motion for ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm per Rule 84.16(b) and Rule 30.25(b). The judgment was supported by substantial evidence and no error of law appears; the motion court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only.

State v. Smalley, 848 S.W.2d 643, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 382, 1993 WL 73682 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

848 S.W.2d 643 (State v. Smalley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.