State v. Hamilton

212 S.W.3d 171, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 118, 2007 WL 148818
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 23, 2007·No. ED 87627·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Hamilton (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting Appellant of forcible rape, forcible sodomy and kidnapping. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err. State v. Bourrage, 175 S.W.3d 698, 701 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

State v. Hamilton, 212 S.W.3d 171, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 118, 2007 WL 148818 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

212 S.W.3d 171 (State v. Hamilton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hamilton v. Jennings
E.D. Missouri, 2020
Hamilton v. State
313 S.W.3d 707 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)
Watkins v. Treasurer of the State
212 S.W.3d 171 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2007)