Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. State

142 S.W.3d 180, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1212, 2004 WL 1924446

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 31, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83994

StatusPublished

This text of 142 S.W.3d 180 (Hill 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

Hill v. State, 142 S.W.3d 180, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1212, 2004 WL 1924446 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted the movant, Freddie Hill, of three counts of robbery in the first degree and three counts of armed criminal action. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. State v. Hill, 105 S.W.3d 849 (Mo.App. E.D.2003).

The movant- filed a Rule 29.15 motion and request for an evidentiary hearing. The motion court granted the movant’s request for an evidentiary hearing for one of his claims and denied his request for his remaining claims. After the hearing, the motion court entered judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The mov-ant appeals from this judgment. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted the movant, Freddie Hill, of three counts of robbery in the first degree and three counts of armed criminal action. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence. State v. Hill, 105 S.W.3d 849 (Mo.App. E.D.2003).

The movant- filed a Rule 29.15 motion and request for an evidentiary hearing. The motion court granted the movant’s request for an evidentiary hearing for one of his claims and denied his request for his remaining claims. After the hearing, the motion court entered judgment denying the movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The mov-ant appeals from this judgment. The motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have provided the parties with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 S.W.3d 180, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1212, 2004 WL 1924446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack