Hawkins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hawkins v. State

485 S.W.3d 391, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 287, 2016 WL 1221450

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 29, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102856

StatusPublished

This text of 485 S.W.3d 391 (Hawkins 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

Hawkins v. State, 485 S.W.3d 391, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 287, 2016 WL 1221450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Mario Hawkins (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Movant was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2006). Movant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison on each count. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Hawkins, 423 S.W.3d 847 (Mo.App.E.D.2014). We affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief. 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 [392]*392memorandum 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

Mario Hawkins (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Movant was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062, RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2006). Movant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison on each count. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Hawkins, 423 S.W.3d 847 (Mo.App.E.D.2014). We affirm the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief. 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 [392]*392memorandum 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)

485 S.W.3d 391, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 287, 2016 WL 1221450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawkins-v-state-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack