Hines v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hines v. State

359 S.W.3d 563, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 248, 2012 WL 612464

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 28, 2012·No. WD 73324·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Hines appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Hines sought to vacate his convictions for three counts of burglary in the second degree, section *564 569.170, RSMo 2000, and concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment on each count. He claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to provide him with the depositions of two police officers, which indicated that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment of the motion court 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:

Ernest Hines appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Hines sought to vacate his convictions for three counts of burglary in the second degree, section *564 569.170, RSMo 2000, and concurrent sentences of six years imprisonment on each count. He claims that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to provide him with the depositions of two police officers, which indicated that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Hines v. State, 359 S.W.3d 563, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 248, 2012 WL 612464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

359 S.W.3d 563 (Hines v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related