State v. Barmore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Barmore

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 15, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80201

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.W.3d 888, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2096, 2002 WL 31300678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barmore-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack