Hill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hill v. State

547 S.W.3d 160

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hill v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 532 S.W.3d 744 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 15, 2018·No. ED 105573·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Hill appeals the motion court's judgment, following an evidentiary hearing, denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Movant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first *161degree, in violation of Section 569.160 RSMo (2016) (Count I), and sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.060 RSMo (2016) (Count II). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Herbert Hill appeals the motion court's judgment, following an evidentiary hearing, denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Movant pleaded guilty to burglary in the first *161degree, in violation of Section 569.160 RSMo (2016) (Count I), and sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.060 RSMo (2016) (Count II). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Hill v. State, 547 S.W.3d 160 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

547 S.W.3d 160 (Hill v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.