Case ID: sw2d_513/html/0471-01.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

Robert Dean HARROD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. 9667.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District.
    Aug. 19, 1974.
    Philip M. Moomaw, Dan L. Birdsong, Rolla, for movant-appellant.
    John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM

The sufficiency of the complaint, verification of the information, and sufficiency of the trial evidence, are not subject to attack in Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceedings. The judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.