State v. Stegall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Stegall

792 S.W.2d 692, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1612, 1990 WL 99339

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Stegall. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 146 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided July 17, 1990·No. Nos. 55502, 57219·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant filed notice of direct appeal, but has raised no points in that appeal; there[693]*693fore, he has abandoned it. He also appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant filed notice of direct appeal, but has raised no points in that appeal; there[693]*693fore, he has abandoned it. He also appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

State v. Stegall, 792 S.W.2d 692, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1612, 1990 WL 99339 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

792 S.W.2d 692 (State v. Stegall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.