State v. Watson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Watson

829 S.W.2d 28, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 288

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 25, 1992

DocketNos. 57696, 59778

StatusPublished

This text of 829 S.W.2d 28 (State v. Watson) 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. Watson, 829 S.W.2d 28, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of heroin and sentenced by the [29]*29court as a prior offender to three years imprisonment. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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 Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of heroin and sentenced by the [29]*29court as a prior offender to three years imprisonment. He also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 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 Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

829 S.W.2d 28, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watson-moctapp-1992.