Hemphill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hemphill v. State

377 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 3939309, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1071

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 4, 2012·No. No. ED 97023·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James J. Hemphill appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Hemphill’s claim for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James J. Hemphill appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find that the motion court did not clearly err in denying Hemphill’s claim for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Hemphill v. State, 377 S.W.3d 613, 2012 WL 3939309, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1071 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

377 S.W.3d 613 (Hemphill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.