Young v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Young v. State

841 S.W.2d 776, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1719, 1992 WL 332591

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 1992

DocketNo. 61147

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 841 S.W.2d 776 (Young v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. State, 841 S.W.2d 776, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1719, 1992 WL 332591 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

[777]*777ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donald Lee Young, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record as submitted, and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

[777]*777ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Donald Lee Young, appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the record as submitted, and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

841 S.W.2d 776, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1719, 1992 WL 332591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack