State v. Hamilton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hamilton

326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2010 WL 4628176

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

DocketED 93952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 326 S.W.3d 502 (State v. Hamilton) 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

State v. Hamilton, 326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2010 WL 4628176 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Hamilton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of two counts of burglary in the first-degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, and two counts of assault in the third degree, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent sentences of thirty years’ imprisonment for each burglary count and ten days in jail for each assault count. Defendant asserts the trial court plainly erred in allowing a victim’s in-court identification because the in-court identification was tainted by a post-indictment viewing of the photographic line-up conducted without the presence of Defendant’s counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Hamilton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of two counts of burglary in the first-degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, and two counts of assault in the third degree, Section 565.070, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent sentences of thirty years’ imprisonment for each burglary count and ten days in jail for each assault count. Defendant asserts the trial court plainly erred in allowing a victim’s in-court identification because the in-court identification was tainted by a post-indictment viewing of the photographic line-up conducted without the presence of Defendant’s counsel.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2010 WL 4628176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hamilton-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack