Stevens v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Stevens v. State

789 S.W.2d 866, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 811, 1990 WL 68161

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stevens v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 701 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 22, 1990·No. No. 57136·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Stevens, appeals from dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We, therefore, affirm the court’s dismissal of appellant’s motion pursuant to [867]*867Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of the court’s decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Stevens, appeals from dismissal of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed appellant’s allegations of error, the entire record upon which they are based, and the findings and conclusions of the motion court. We do not find the court’s action to be clearly erroneous and find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We, therefore, affirm the court’s dismissal of appellant’s motion pursuant to [867]*867Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, which sets forth the basis of the court’s decision.

Stevens v. State, 789 S.W.2d 866, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 811, 1990 WL 68161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

789 S.W.2d 866 (Stevens v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.