Gilleylen v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gilleylen v. State

573 S.W.3d 765

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106227

StatusPublished

This text of 573 S.W.3d 765 (Gilleylen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gilleylen v. State, 573 S.W.3d 765 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Quintin C. Gilleylen ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of the unclassified felony of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2012). This Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Quentin Gilleylen, 482 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Quintin C. Gilleylen ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of the unclassified felony of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2012). This Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Quentin Gilleylen, 482 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 S.W.3d 765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilleylen-v-state-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack