Walker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walker v. State

869 S.W.2d 921, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 186, 1994 WL 35534

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 8, 1994·No. No. 64139·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without 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 [922]*922for 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.

Defendant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without 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 [922]*922for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Walker v. State, 869 S.W.2d 921, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 186, 1994 WL 35534 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

869 S.W.2d 921 (Walker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.