Hamilton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hamilton v. State

342 S.W.3d 373, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 764, 2011 WL 2237953

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

DocketED 95930

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 342 S.W.3d 373 (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, 342 S.W.3d 373, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 764, 2011 WL 2237953 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marvin J. Hamilton appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Melton v. State, 260 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marvin J. Hamilton appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Melton v. State, 260 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P.2009, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 373, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 764, 2011 WL 2237953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack