Hunt v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hunt v. State

320 S.W.3d 724, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1267, 2010 WL 3681129

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 21, 2010·No. No. ED 93872·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Hunt (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his conviction for robbery in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.030, RSMo 2000.¹ Finding no error, we affirm.

[725] We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Hunt (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. Movant sought to vacate his conviction for robbery in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.030, RSMo 2000.¹ Finding no error, we affirm.

[725] We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Footnotes

Hunt v. State, 320 S.W.3d 724, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1267, 2010 WL 3681129 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

320 S.W.3d 724 (Hunt v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.