Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990

Honeycutt v. State

Honeycutt v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1990
801 S.W.2d 416; 1990 Mo. App. LEXIS 1674; 1990 WL 178815 (South Western Reporter, Second Series)

Honeycutt v. State

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from' the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion challenging his guilty pleas as involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court *417are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential 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).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.