Hinton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hinton v. State

983 S.W.2d 191, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2243, 1998 WL 928856

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

DocketNo. 74243

StatusPublished

This text of 983 S.W.2d 191 (Hinton 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

Hinton v. State, 983 S.W.2d 191, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2243, 1998 WL 928856 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[192]*192ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Antwone Hinton appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence without an evidentiary hearing, relative to his convictions for the Class A felony of robbery in the first degree and the Class C felony of assault in the second degree.

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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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

[192]*192ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Antwone Hinton appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct the Judgment or Sentence without an evidentiary hearing, relative to his convictions for the Class A felony of robbery in the first degree and the Class C felony of assault in the second degree.

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. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

983 S.W.2d 191, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2243, 1998 WL 928856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hinton-v-state-moctapp-1998.