State v. Belfield

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Belfield

230 S.W.3d 635, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 7, 2007

DocketNo. ED 88B70

StatusPublished

This text of 230 S.W.3d 635 (State v. Belfield) 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. Belfield, 230 S.W.3d 635, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Michael E. Belfield, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1993), and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (1986), for a murder committed in 1994. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder count and three years imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, to be served concurrently.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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.

Defendant, Michael E. Belfield, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1993), and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (1986), for a murder committed in 1994. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder count and three years imprisonment on the armed criminal action count, to be served concurrently.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. 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)

230 S.W.3d 635, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-belfield-moctapp-2007.