State v. Anderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Anderson

509 S.W.3d 861, 2017 WL 490464, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 103

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103695

StatusPublished

This text of 509 S.W.3d 861 (State v. Anderson) 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

State v. Anderson, 509 S.W.3d 861, 2017 WL 490464, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Keith Anderson (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on four counts of child molestation in the first degree (in violation of Section 566.067¹) and one count of attempted victim tampering (in violation of Section 575.270). The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total of eight years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Keith Anderson (“Defendant”) appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on four counts of child molestation in the first degree (in violation of Section 566.067¹) and one count of attempted victim tampering (in violation of Section 575.270). The trial court sentenced Defendant to a total of eight years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 S.W.3d 861, 2017 WL 490464, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-moctapp-2017.