Case ID: sw2d_792/html/0631-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glenn VALENTINE, Movant-Respondent, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 56109.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Sept. 26, 1989.
    William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-appellant.
    Raymond A. Bruntrager, St. Louis, for movant-respondent.
   ORDER

The state appeals from a judgment granting movant’s Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).