OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant. Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Willie Thompkins, Movant/·Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant. Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/
Respondent
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant. Willie Thompkins, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 67965 & 70658 Handdown Date: 09/30/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Sherri B. Sullivan Counsel for Appellant: Douglas R. Hoff Counsel for Respondent: Lisa A. Fischer Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Knaup Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and R. Dowd, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Willie Thompkins appeals from his conviction by a jury and sentence on one count of murder in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 1994, one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020 RSMo 1994, and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo 1994. Thompkins also appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion on the merits after an evidentiary hearing. With respect to the direct appeal, no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. With respect to the appeal from the denial of the Rule 29.15 motion, the judgment of the motion court was based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The judgments are affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved has been provided explaining the reason for our decision. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.