Hayes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hayes v. State

297 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1575, 2009 WL 3753996

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 2009

DocketED 92359

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 297 S.W.3d 137 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. State, 297 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1575, 2009 WL 3753996 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Hayes (Movant) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Judgment) overruling his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for one count of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, 1 and for one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marvin Hayes (Movant) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Judgment) overruling his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his convictions for one count of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, 1 and for one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 84.16(b)(2). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 S.W.3d 137, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1575, 2009 WL 3753996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack