Case ID: sw3d_529/html/0930-02.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

Antoine Lamont HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
    No. ED 104926
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
    Filed: October 10, 2017
    Maleaner R. Harvey, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.
    Garrick F D Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent. '
    Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antoine Lamont Hill (“Movant”) appeals from a judgment, denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion following an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, Movant argues the motion court erred ⅛ denying his post-conviction relief motion because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object at trial to the introduction of a witness’s hearsay statements to police on the grounds that it violated his constitutional right to confrontation and cross-examination. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and we find the motion court did not clearly err. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Crv. P. 84.16(b) (2015).