Times v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Times v. State

831 S.W.2d 712, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 759, 1992 WL 88279

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 5, 1992·No. No. 60381·Published

Opinion

[713]*713ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentia-ry 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 Rule 84.16(b).

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

[713]*713ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentia-ry 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 Rule 84.16(b).

Times v. State, 831 S.W.2d 712, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 759, 1992 WL 88279 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

831 S.W.2d 712 (Times v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.