Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isaac Haley, Jr., Appellant; Isaac Haley, Jr., Movant-Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isaac-haley-jr-appellant-isaac-haley-jr-mo-17035
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17035
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+vs.+Isaac+Haley%2C+Jr.%2C+Appellant%3B+Isaac+Haley%2C+Jr.%2C+Movant-Appellant%2C+vs.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Syllabus

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, vs. Isaac Haley, Jr., Appellant; Isaac Haley, Jr., Movant-Appellant, vs. 
State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  Nos. 67648 and 70399
Handdown Date:  05/20/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Marion County, Honorable Carroll M. Blackwell
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam.
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.
Opinion:

O R D E R
Before Lawrence G. Crahan, P.J. and Stanley A. Grimm, J. and Mary K. Hoff, J.

---

## PER CURIAM

Isaac Haley, Jr. appeals the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of delivery of a controlled substance 
under section 195.211 RSMo Cum. Supp. 1993 and the denial of his 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to 
be without merit.  No error of law appears.  An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of 
law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value.  Judgments affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 

84.16(b). 
Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.