Case ID: sw2d_759/html/0607-01.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

Chester WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 53966.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
    Aug. 30, 1988.
    Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 15, 1988.
    Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals after the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion following an evidentiary hearing. The findings, conclusions, and judgment of the trial court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).

An extended opinion would have no prec-edential value. 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).