Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. State

282 S.W.3d 397, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 413, 2009 WL 909721

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 2009

DocketWD 69092

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 S.W.3d 397 (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, 282 S.W.3d 397, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 413, 2009 WL 909721 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

James A. Hill appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Hill was convicted in Jackson County Circuit Court of one count of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 2000; one count of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020; and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015. Hill contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney conceded his guilt to certain lesser included offenses, and failed to call particular witnesses in Hill’s defense. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

James A. Hill appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Hill was convicted in Jackson County Circuit Court of one count of assault in the first degree, § 565.050, RSMo 2000; one count of robbery in the first degree, § 569.020; and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015. Hill contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial because his attorney conceded his guilt to certain lesser included offenses, and failed to call particular witnesses in Hill’s defense. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 S.W.3d 397, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 413, 2009 WL 909721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack