Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Charles Warren, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: other
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charles-warren-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-17620
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17620
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=Charles+Warren%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=text&ott_archive_link_score=4&ott_archive_link_evidence=text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: text; score: 4; evidence: text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  Charles Warren, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 70616
Handdown Date:  06/24/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Lucy D. Rauch
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, and Gaertner, JJ.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Appellant, Charles Warren, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 
24.035 motion after an evidentiary hearing.  We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of motion court is not clearly 
erroneous.  As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.