Hale v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hale v. State

359 S.W.3d 538, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 199, 2012 WL 548930

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

DocketED 96227

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 538 (Hale 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

Hale v. State, 359 S.W.3d 538, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 199, 2012 WL 548930 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billie Hale (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of six counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of first-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree statutory. rape. Movant was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years, life, ten years, and life imprisonment. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billie Hale (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted by a jury of six counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, three counts of first-degree child molestation and two counts of first-degree statutory. rape. Movant was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty years, life, ten years, and life imprisonment. 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)

359 S.W.3d 538, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 199, 2012 WL 548930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hale-v-state-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack