Stegall v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stegall v. State

786 S.W.2d 200, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 437, 1990 WL 29828

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 1990·No. No. 56733·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant 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 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).

Stegall v. State, 786 S.W.2d 200, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 437, 1990 WL 29828 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

786 S.W.2d 200 (Stegall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.