State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sirletheo Haymon, Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Sirletheo Haymon
- 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. Sirletheo Haymon, Appellant. Case Number: 67966 Handdown Date: 12/16/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Edward M. Peek Counsel for Appellant: Deborah Wafer and Robert Steele Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Cheryl A. Caponegro Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski, and Gaertner, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Appellant, Sirletheo Haymon, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of second degree murder, RSMo section 565.021; All statutory references are to RSMo 1986 unless otherwise noted. attempted first degree robbery and first degree robbery, RSMo section 569.020; and two counts of armed criminal action, RSMo section 571.015. Appellant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, legal files and transcripts. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b), and as the motion court's decision is not clearly erroneous, we affirm its judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). 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
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
- Rule 30.25cited
Rule 30.25
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Julian McClain, Defendant/Appellant. Julian McClain, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Lisa Zych, Movant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2002)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED79487
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Ralph Harper, Defendant/Appellant and Ralph Harper, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Marques Morris, Defendant. Maarques Morris, Movant/Defendant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1998)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stanley Burks, Appellant. Stanley Burks, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. George Ferina, Appellant.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District