Townsend v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Townsend v. State

785 S.W.2d 634, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 99, 1990 WL 4126

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Townsend v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 4730 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 23, 1990·No. No. 56193·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial of his timely filed Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion to vacate sentence after an evidentiary hearing.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 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Movant appeals the denial of his timely filed Rule 27.26 (now repealed) motion to vacate sentence after an evidentiary hearing.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 Rule 84.16(b).

Townsend v. State, 785 S.W.2d 634, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 99, 1990 WL 4126 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

785 S.W.2d 634 (Townsend v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.