Case Name: Cleo HINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-11-12
Citations: 456 S.W.3d 50
Docket Number: No. ED 100994
Parties: Cleo HINES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J. and Robert G. Dowd, Jr. and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 456
Pages: 50–51

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).