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

Case: Norman E. Douglas, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: other
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/norman-e-douglas-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-17893
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17893
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=Norman+E.+Douglas%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 Western District
Case Style:  Norman E. Douglas, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  54521
Handdown Date:  06/30/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Frank Conley
Counsel for Appellant:  Party Acting Pro Se
Counsel for Respondent:  Jacqueline K. Hamra
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ellis P.J., Lowenstein and Riederer, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Douglas appeals from the dismissal of a "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis."Having carefully considered the 
contentions on appeal, we conclude the judgment should be affirmed.  A published opinion would lack precedential value. 
A memorandum as to the reasons for our decision has been furnished to the parties.  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.