In the Interest of R.D.P.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of R.D.P.

241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1715, 2007 WL 4390656

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

DocketED 89512

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 241 S.W.3d 419 (In the Interest of R.D.P.) 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 R.D.P., 241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1715, 2007 WL 4390656 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

R.D.P. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to commitment to the Division of Youth Services for appropriate placement and ordered him to pay five hundred dollars in restitution to the victim. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erred m admitting the in-court and out-of-court identifications because they were a product of an unwarranted arrest and impermissible suggestive police line-up procedures.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant’s allegation of error to be without merit. 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 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

R.D.P. (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to commitment to the Division of Youth Services for appropriate placement and ordered him to pay five hundred dollars in restitution to the victim. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erred m admitting the in-court and out-of-court identifications because they were a product of an unwarranted arrest and impermissible suggestive police line-up procedures.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant’s allegation of error to be without merit. 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 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 S.W.3d 419, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1715, 2007 WL 4390656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-rdp-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack