State v. Barber

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Barber

485 S.W.3d 796, 2016 WL 1319211, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 325

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 S.W.3d 796 (State v. Barber) 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. Barber, 485 S.W.3d 796, 2016 WL 1319211, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 325 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Barber (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions, after a bench trial, of two counts of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo (2000), two associated counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo (2000) and one count of resisting arrest, in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo (2000). Defendant on appeal asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence and testimony of pretrial and. in-court identifications because the identification procedure used by the police were-unduly suggestive and. rendered the identifications unreliable. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of resisting arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We conclude no reversible error occurred. 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. Ceim. PRO. 30.25(b) (2015).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Barber (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions, after a bench trial, of two counts of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo (2000), two associated counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo (2000) and one count of resisting arrest, in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo (2000). Defendant on appeal asserts the trial court erred in admitting evidence and testimony of pretrial and. in-court identifications because the identification procedure used by the police were-unduly suggestive and. rendered the identifications unreliable. Defendant also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction of resisting arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We conclude no reversible error occurred. 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. Ceim. PRO. 30.25(b) (2015).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 S.W.3d 796, 2016 WL 1319211, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barber-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack