Case ID: sw3d_456/html/0050-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cleo HINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 100994
    Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE
    Filed: November 12, 2014
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 24, 2015
    
      Gwenda R. Robinson, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, Attorney for Appellant.
    Chris Koster, Attorney General, Richard A. Starnes, Asst. Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899, Attorneys for Respondent.
    Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cleo Hines (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing because the State used a theory of prosecution to convict him of robbery and murder that was inconsistent with the theory used to convict his co-defendant, Paul White.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).