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

Case: Edward Barry, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/edward-barry-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-13190
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13190
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=Edward+Barry%2C+Movant%2FAppellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## 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:  Edward Barry, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Case Number:  72778 & 72779
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Floyd McBride
Counsel for Appellant:  David Hemingway
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III and Karen Kramer
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.   Simon, P.J., Crane and Mooney, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Movant, Edward Barry, appeals from a judgment denying on the merits, after an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 
24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.
The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous.  No 
error of law appears.  An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential 
value.  However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons 
for this order.
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.