Case Name: Antoine Lamont HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-10-10
Citations: 529 S.W.3d 930
Docket Number: No. ED 104926
Parties: Antoine Lamont HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 529
Pages: 930–931

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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 introduc tion 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).