OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Carl Hills, Appellant

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Carl Hills
Respondent
State of Missouri

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, Respondent, v. Carl Hills, Appellant Case Number: 73306 Handdown Date: 09/29/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Hon. Jimmie M. Edwards Counsel for Appellant: Jennifer Walsh Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris and Cheryl A. Caponegro Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Simon, P.J., Crane and Mooney, JJ. concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of Count I, assault in the first degree in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo. 1994; Count II, burglary in the first degree in violation of Section 569.160 RSMo. 1994; Count III, stealing in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo. 1994; Count IV, assault in the second degree in violation of Section 565.060 RSMo. 1994; and two counts of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo.

  1. The judgment also found him to be a prior and persistent offender under Section 558.016 RSMo. 1994. He was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 25 years on Count I; 20 years on Count II; 20 years on Count III; 20 years on Count IV; and 25 years on Count V, all to be served concurrently. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting

forth the facts and reasons for this order. 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

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.