Legal Opinion

Hurst v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 19, 2010No. ED 92577PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge.

Introduction

Willie Hurst (Movant) appeals from the motion court’s denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Finding no clear error in the motion court’s ruling, we affirm.

Background

On September 15, 2004, a jury convicted Movant of three counts of first degree statutory rape, in violation of Section 566.032, RSMo 2000 1 , one count of first degree statutory sodomy, in violation of Section 566.062, and one count of second degree attempted statutory rape, in violation of Section 564.011. These charges…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Rock v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Anderson v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2006
  4. Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2005
  5. Weeks v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 2004

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Barnes v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. Donovan E. Tate v. State of MissouriMissouri Court of Appeals · 2015
  3. Ferguson v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010
  4. Hardy v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Wills v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2010

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API