Haymon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Haymon v. State

312 S.W.3d 465, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 770, 2010 WL 2284131

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 2010

DocketED 94016

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 312 S.W.3d 465 (Haymon 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

Haymon v. State, 312 S.W.3d 465, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 770, 2010 WL 2284131 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Avis Haymon (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Movant entered pleas of guilty to amended charges of second-degree murder and armed criminal action and was sentenced to twenty years and three years of imprisonment for the crimes, respectively, to run concurrently. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s ruling, 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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Avis Haymon (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial, without an evidentia-ry hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. Movant entered pleas of guilty to amended charges of second-degree murder and armed criminal action and was sentenced to twenty years and three years of imprisonment for the crimes, respectively, to run concurrently. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s ruling, 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. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

312 S.W.3d 465, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 770, 2010 WL 2284131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haymon-v-state-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack