Hammer v. State

211 S.W.3d 183, 2007 WL 90223

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hammer v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 48 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 16, 2007·No. WD 65851·Published

Opinion

211 S.W.3d 183 (2007)

No. WD 65851.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

January 16, 2007.

Ellen Flottman, State Public Defender Office, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun Mackelprang and Daniel McPherson, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge, PAUL M. SPINDEN, Judge, and LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Tommy Hammer appeals the circuit court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

211 S.W.3d 183 (2007)

No. WD 65851.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

January 16, 2007.

Ellen Flottman, State Public Defender Office, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun Mackelprang and Daniel McPherson, Assistant Attorneys General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before RONALD R. HOLLIGER, Presiding Judge, PAUL M. SPINDEN, Judge, and LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Tommy Hammer appeals the circuit court's denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Hammer v. State, 211 S.W.3d 183, 2007 WL 90223 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

211 S.W.3d 183 (Hammer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

211 S.W.3d 183 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)