Huggins v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Huggins v. State

860 S.W.2d 393, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1370, 1993 WL 327140

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Huggins v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1158 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 31, 1993·No. No. 63003·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Sylvester Huggins, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of three counts of assault in the first degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 30 years, 20 years, and 20 years.

We have reviewed the record with regard to the motion court’s denial of movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Movant, Sylvester Huggins, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, after an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of three counts of assault in the first degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 30 years, 20 years, and 20 years.

We have reviewed the record with regard to the motion court’s denial of movant’s Rule 29.15 motion. The judgment of the motion court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; no error of law appears. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Huggins v. State, 860 S.W.2d 393, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1370, 1993 WL 327140 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

860 S.W.2d 393 (Huggins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.