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

Case: Ronnie McCabe, 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/ronnie-mccabe-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-17127
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17127
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=Ronnie+McCabe%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:  Ronnie McCabe, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  No. 71333
Handdown Date:  07/15/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Kenneth M. Weinstock
Counsel for Appellant:  Douglas R. Hoff, Public Defender
Counsel for Respondent:  John Munson Morris III, Assistant Attorney General, and Breck K. Burgess, 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, Ronnie McCabe, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis 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.