In the Interest of C.D.R.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of C.D.R.

493 S.W.3d 51, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 671, 2016 WL 3568327

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103310

StatusPublished

This text of 493 S.W.3d 51 (In the Interest of C.D.R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In the Interest of C.D.R., 493 S.W.3d 51, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 671, 2016 WL 3568327 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

' PER CURIAM.

C.D.R. appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County adjudicating him delinquent on the charges of two counts of statutory rape in the first degree, one count of statutory sodomy in the first degree, and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child and committing him to the custody of the Division of Youth Services. We have reviewed the briefs of [52]*52the parties and. the record on appeal and conclude the juvenile ¡court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

' PER CURIAM.

C.D.R. appeals from a judgment of the Family Court, Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Lincoln County adjudicating him delinquent on the charges of two counts of statutory rape in the first degree, one count of statutory sodomy in the first degree, and one count of sexual misconduct involving a child and committing him to the custody of the Division of Youth Services. We have reviewed the briefs of [52]*52the parties and. the record on appeal and conclude the juvenile ¡court committed no error. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 S.W.3d 51, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 671, 2016 WL 3568327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cdr-moctapp-2016.