Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. State

529 S.W.3d 930

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 10, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104926

StatusPublished

This text of 529 S.W.3d 930 (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, 529 S.W.3d 930 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Lamont Hill (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred ⅛ denying his post-conviction relief motion because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object at trial to the introduction of a witness’s hearsay statements to police on the grounds that it violated his constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Crv. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Lamont Hill (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred ⅛ denying his post-conviction relief motion because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object at trial to the introduction of a witness’s hearsay statements to police on the grounds that it violated his constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Crv. P. 84.16(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

529 S.W.3d 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-state-moctapp-2017.