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

Case: Richard Barber, 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/richard-barber-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-16841
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16841
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=Richard+Barber%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:  Richard Barber, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71039
Handdown Date:  07/08/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Anna Forder
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, and Gaertner, JJ.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Appellant, Richard Barber, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying his Rule 
24.035 motion, following 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.