Hayes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hayes v. State

347 S.W.3d 184, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1148, 2011 WL 3890732

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 2011

DocketED 94956

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.W.3d 184 (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, 347 S.W.3d 184, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1148, 2011 WL 3890732 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine O. Hayes (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appealed from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and attempted robbery in the first degree, Section 564.011. The trial court sentenced Movant as a prior and persistent offender to a total of three concurrent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment plus a consecutive term of three years’ imprisonment on one of the armed criminal action counts. This Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Hayes, 265 S.W.3d 350 (Mo.App. E.D.2008).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to submit an alibi instruction and to object to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Movant regarding his prior convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal 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. However, we have 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.

Jermaine O. Hayes (hereinafter, “Mov-ant”) appealed from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of first degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and attempted robbery in the first degree, Section 564.011. The trial court sentenced Movant as a prior and persistent offender to a total of three concurrent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment plus a consecutive term of three years’ imprisonment on one of the armed criminal action counts. This Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Hayes, 265 S.W.3d 350 (Mo.App. E.D.2008).

Movant now appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postcon-viction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant alleges he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his trial counsel failed to submit an alibi instruction and to object to the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Movant regarding his prior convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal 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. However, we have 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)

347 S.W.3d 184, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1148, 2011 WL 3890732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack