State v. Washington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Washington

873 S.W.2d 681, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 653, 1994 WL 133064

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Washington. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 230 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 19, 1994·No. Nos. 62904, 64321·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after a jury convicted him of sodomy and the motion court denied his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find no error of law appears and the findings of fact of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). Further, we find no precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended [682]*682opinion and affirm by written order. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been provided 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 after a jury convicted him of sodomy and the motion court denied his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find no error of law appears and the findings of fact of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2) and (5). Further, we find no precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended [682]*682opinion and affirm by written order. Rule 30.25(b); Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only.

State v. Washington, 873 S.W.2d 681, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 653, 1994 WL 133064 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

873 S.W.2d 681 (State v. Washington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.