Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hines v. State
Citations: 456 S.W.3d 50; 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1249; 2014 WL 5843523Docket: No. ED 100994
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; November 11, 2014; Missouri; State Appellate Court
Cleo Hines appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He contends that the motion court erred by rejecting his claim that the prosecution's theory for his conviction of robbery and murder was inconsistent with that used against his co-defendant, Paul White. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the appeal record, the court finds that the motion court's findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous. Consequently, the court affirms the judgment without providing a detailed opinion, as it would have no precedential value. A memorandum outlining the reasons for the order has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).