Hill v. State

304 S.W.3d 278, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 2010 WL 572520
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hill v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 5
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 19, 2010·No. ED 92966·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard S. Hill appeals from the motion court’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, Judgment and Decree of Court denying his Rule 24.035 1 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment and Sentence without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. Sup.Ct. R. (2008), unless otherwise indicated.

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

Hill v. State, 304 S.W.3d 278, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 2010 WL 572520 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

304 S.W.3d 278 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Carleton Properties, LLC v. Patterson
304 S.W.3d 278 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)