Watson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watson v. State

792 S.W.2d 13, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 629, 1990 WL 50887

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Watson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 24, 1990·No. No. 56970·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Keven Watson, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. We affirm.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion'would serve no precedential purpose. 'A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, have been provided explaining the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Keven Watson, appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an eviden-tiary hearing. We affirm.

The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion'would serve no precedential purpose. 'A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, have been provided explaining the reasons for our decision. Rule 84.16(b).

Watson v. State, 792 S.W.2d 13, 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 629, 1990 WL 50887 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

792 S.W.2d 13 (Watson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.