State v. Hills

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hills

892 S.W.2d 821, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 294, 1995 WL 73368

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

DocketNo. 64206

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 892 S.W.2d 821 (State v. Hills) 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. Hills, 892 S.W.2d 821, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 294, 1995 WL 73368 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Samuel Hills, appeals from a jury trial conviction of the class B felony of delivery of a controlled substance, RSMo § 195.211 (Cum.Supp.1990), entered by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis and for which appellant was sentenced as a class X offender to twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant also appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Samuel Hills, appeals from a jury trial conviction of the class B felony of delivery of a controlled substance, RSMo § 195.211 (Cum.Supp.1990), entered by the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis and for which appellant was sentenced as a class X offender to twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Appellant also appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

892 S.W.2d 821, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 294, 1995 WL 73368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hills-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack