OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Demortheriv Hill, Appellant. Demortheriv Hill, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Demortheriv Hill·Demortheriv Hill, Appellant. Demortheriv Hill, Appellant, v. State of Missouri
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. Demortheriv Hill, Appellant. Demortheriv Hill, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 68595 Handdown Date: 12/16/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Evelyn Baker Counsel for Appellant: Robert Steele Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III and Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski, and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Appellant, Demortheriv Hill, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of first degree murder, RSMo section 565.020 (1994), and armed criminal action, RSMo section 571.015 (1994). Appellant also appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. Regarding appellant's direct appeal, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). Regarding the denial of appellant's Rule 29.15 motion, we have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the motion court's judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decisions is

attached solely for the use of the parties involved. 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.

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.