Hooker v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hooker v. State

341 S.W.3d 191, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2011 WL 1796403

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 10, 2011

DocketED 95286

StatusPublished

This text of 341 S.W.3d 191 (Hooker 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

Hooker v. State, 341 S.W.3d 191, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2011 WL 1796403 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Hooker (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of first degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to two terms of twenty years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hooker, 284 S.W.3d 782 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Movant raises one point on appeal, arguing he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel failed to challenge the victim’s identification testimony on direct appeal.

*192 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Vincent Hooker (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. Movant was convicted of one count of first degree robbery, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo (2000). Movant was sentenced to two terms of twenty years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently. Movant’s convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hooker, 284 S.W.3d 782 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). Movant raises one point on appeal, arguing he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel when counsel failed to challenge the victim’s identification testimony on direct appeal.

*192 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 S.W.3d 191, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 639, 2011 WL 1796403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooker-v-state-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack