State v. Hawkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hawkins

129 S.W.3d 440, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 342, 2004 WL 503626

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 16, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82625

StatusPublished

This text of 129 S.W.3d 440 (State v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 129 S.W.3d 440, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 342, 2004 WL 503626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Hawkins (“defendant”) was charged with tampering in the first degree under section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 2000. A jury convicted defendant of this charge [441]*441and defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals the judgment on his conviction claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and in overruling defendant’s hearsay objection to the admission of the “hot sheet.”

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Anthony Hawkins (“defendant”) was charged with tampering in the first degree under section 569.080.1(2), RSMo 2000. A jury convicted defendant of this charge [441]*441and defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to thirteen years’ imprisonment. Defendant appeals the judgment on his conviction claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal and in overruling defendant’s hearsay objection to the admission of the “hot sheet.”

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W.3d 440, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 342, 2004 WL 503626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hawkins-moctapp-2004.