State v. Barmore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Barmore

87 S.W.3d 888, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2096, 2002 WL 31300678

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 15, 2002·No. No. ED 80201·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Barmore (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s ruling on Appellant’s motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence. State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603, 610 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). 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 Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Scott Barmore (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty as a prior and persistent offender of first-degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s ruling on Appellant’s motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence. State v. Davis, 32 S.W.3d 603, 610 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). 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 Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

State v. Barmore, 87 S.W.3d 888, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2096, 2002 WL 31300678 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

87 S.W.3d 888 (State v. Barmore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related