Hinkle v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hinkle v. State

25 S.W.3d 691, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 1219425

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2000

DocketNo. ED 77118

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.W.3d 691 (Hinkle 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

Hinkle v. State, 25 S.W.3d 691, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 1219425 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Hinkle (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing. We affirmed Movant’s conviction for first degree tampering, section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 1994, on direct appeal. State v. Hinkle, 987 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Movant now challenges the failure of his counsel to object to evidence of other crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the exclusive use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Hinkle (Movant) appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion without a hearing. We affirmed Movant’s conviction for first degree tampering, section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 1994, on direct appeal. State v. Hinkle, 987 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). Movant now challenges the failure of his counsel to object to evidence of other crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the exclusive use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.W.3d 691, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1286, 2000 WL 1219425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinkle-v-state-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack