Hamilton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. State

313 S.W.3d 707, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 819, 2010 WL 2378932

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2010

DocketED 93868

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 S.W.3d 707 (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, 313 S.W.3d 707, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 819, 2010 WL 2378932 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James H. Hamilton (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant was convicted of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), 1 forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and kidnapping, Section 565.110. Movant was sentenced, as a prior offender, to twenty years’ imprisonment each on the forcible rape and forcible sodomy counts, to run concurrently. Movant was also sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the kidnapping count, ordered to run consecutively to the other convictions. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hamilton, 212 S.W.Sd 171 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Subsequently, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises three points on appeal. In his first two points, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to locate, interview, and endorse witnesses which he claims would provide him with a viable defense. In his third point, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress with respect to statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All 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.

James H. Hamilton (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an ev-identiary hearing. Movant was convicted of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), 1 forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and kidnapping, Section 565.110. Movant was sentenced, as a prior offender, to twenty years’ imprisonment each on the forcible rape and forcible sodomy counts, to run concurrently. Movant was also sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for the kidnapping count, ordered to run consecutively to the other convictions. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hamilton, 212 S.W.Sd 171 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). Subsequently, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant raises three points on appeal. In his first two points, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to locate, interview, and endorse witnesses which he claims would provide him with a viable defense. In his third point, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress with respect to statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.W.3d 707, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 819, 2010 WL 2378932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack