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

Case: Daniel R. Kalin, 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/daniel-r-kalin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-17683
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17683
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=Daniel+R.+Kalin%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:  Daniel R. Kalin, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 70659
Handdown Date:  07/15/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton
Counsel for Appellant:  Robert Steele, Public Defender
Counsel for Respondent:  John Munson Morris III, Attorney General and Jacqueline K. Hamra, Assistant Attorney 
General
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, P.J., Reinhard and Gaertner, JJ., concur.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Appellant, Daniel R. Kalin, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County denying his Rule 
24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.  We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous.  As an 
extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.