From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Jun 15, 2010
313 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. ED93868.

June 15, 2010.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Philip Heagney, Judge.

Lisa M. Stroup, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Terrence M. Messonnier, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.

Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.

Prior report: 212 S.W.3d 171.



ORDER


James H. Hamilton (hereinafter, "Movant") appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant was convicted of forcible rape, Section 566.030 RSMo (2000), forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and kidnapping, Section 565.110. Movant was sentenced, as a prior offender, to twenty years' imprisonment each on the forcible rape and forcible sodomy counts, to run concurrently. Movant was also sentenced to five years' imprisonment for the kidnapping count, ordered to run consecutively to the other convictions. Movant's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Hamilton, 212 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. E.D.2007). Subsequently, Movant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.

All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Movant raises three points on appeal. In his first two points, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to locate, interview, and endorse witnesses which he claims would provide him with a viable defense. In his third point, Movant argues defense counsel was ineffective for failing to litigate a motion to suppress with respect to statements he made to the police.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript, and find the motion court's decision was not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). An opinion re-citing the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).


Summaries of

Hamilton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Jun 15, 2010
313 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Hamilton v. State

Case Details

Full title:James HAMILTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District

Date published: Jun 15, 2010

Citations

313 S.W.3d 707 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Hamilton v. Jennings

Petitioner filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15,…

Hamilton v. Denney

Petitioner filed a timely motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15,…