Surgeon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Surgeon v. State

873 S.W.2d 682, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 656, 1994 WL 133097

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 19, 1994·No. No. 63967·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find no error of law. Rule 84.16(b)(5). Further, we find the findings of fact issued by the motion court in denying Defendant’s motion are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Therefore, we affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued 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 the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We affirm. We find no error of law. Rule 84.16(b)(5). Further, we find the findings of fact issued by the motion court in denying Defendant’s motion are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2).

An opinion in this case would have no precedential value. Therefore, we affirm by written order. Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been issued to the parties for their use only.

Surgeon v. State, 873 S.W.2d 682, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 656, 1994 WL 133097 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

873 S.W.2d 682 (Surgeon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.