Case ID: sw2d_826/html/0086-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James HIGGS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
    No. 60097.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Jan. 28, 1992.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 3, 1992.
    Application to Transfer Denied April 21, 1992.
    David Bruns, St. Louis, for movant/ap-pellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant/respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from an order denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. The motion court’s judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).