Wilson v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wilson v. State

829 S.W.2d 50, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, 1992 WL 42254

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Wilson v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1694 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 10, 1992·No. No. 59769·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals 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 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 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 for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Wilson v. State, 829 S.W.2d 50, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, 1992 WL 42254 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

829 S.W.2d 50 (Wilson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.