Traina v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Traina v. State

865 S.W.2d 681, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 927, 1993 WL 214004

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 22, 1993·No. No. 62595·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as premature. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this 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 dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion as premature. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Traina v. State, 865 S.W.2d 681, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 927, 1993 WL 214004 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

865 S.W.2d 681 (Traina v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.