Tankins v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Tankins v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wood v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
The court stated that a Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing, citing Lane v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo.App.1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Clark v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1987 · confidence medium
Lane v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo.App.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Erick C. TANKINS, Movant-Appellant
v.
STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent
No. 50330.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Apr 1, 1986.
710 S.W.2d 354
Dave Hemingway, Office of Sp. Public Defender, Dorothy M. Hirzy, St. Louis, for movant-appellant., John M. Morris, Stephen D. Hawke, Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals after denial of his Rule 27.26 motions without an evidentiary hearing. An extended opinion would be of no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).