OTT LAW

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

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.