Washington v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Washington v. State

788 S.W.2d 807, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 770, 1990 WL 63668

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Washington v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 541 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 1990·No. No. 56246·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Lonzo Washington, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record on which they are based and the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find that the court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous and [808]*808also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been provided to the parties, solely for their information, explaining the basis for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Lonzo Washington, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record on which they are based and the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find that the court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous and [808]*808also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been provided to the parties, solely for their information, explaining the basis for our decision.

Washington v. State, 788 S.W.2d 807, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 770, 1990 WL 63668 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

788 S.W.2d 807 (Washington v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.