Hamilton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. State

280 S.W.3d 788, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 465, 2009 WL 983231

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 14, 2009

DocketED 91285

StatusPublished

This text of 280 S.W.3d 788 (Hamilton 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

Hamilton v. State, 280 S.W.3d 788, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 465, 2009 WL 983231 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Hamilton (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following his conviction by a jury in the City of St. Louis, the trial court rendered judgment against Movant for attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Sections 564.011 and 566.062, RSMo (2000). 1 Movant was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction in his direct appeal. State v. Hamilton, 155 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

*789 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All subsequent statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willie Hamilton (Movant) appeals the motion court’s denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Following his conviction by a jury in the City of St. Louis, the trial court rendered judgment against Movant for attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Sections 564.011 and 566.062, RSMo (2000). 1 Movant was sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction in his direct appeal. State v. Hamilton, 155 S.W.3d 793, 794 (Mo.App. E.D.2005).

*789 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All subsequent statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 S.W.3d 788, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 465, 2009 WL 983231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack