Hulsey v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hulsey v. State

532 S.W.3d 743

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 31, 2017

DocketNo. ED 105051

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 532 S.W.3d 743 (Hulsey 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

Hulsey v. State, 532 S.W.3d 743 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Demetrius Hulsey (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree. Movant was sentenced as a prior offender to 20 years’ imprisonment for each count, which were ordered to be served concurrently. This court affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentences in State v. Hulsey, 424 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Demetrius Hulsey (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of robbery in the first degree. Movant was sentenced as a prior offender to 20 years’ imprisonment for each count, which were ordered to be served concurrently. This court affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentences in State v. Hulsey, 424 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

532 S.W.3d 743, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulsey-v-state-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack