State v. Billingsley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Billingsley

572 S.W.3d 164

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 23, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 572 S.W.3d 164 (State v. Billingsley) 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. Billingsley, 572 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

John Billingsley ("Defendant") appeals judgment entered after a jury verdict convicting him of the class A felony of child kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender.

For his only point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting allegedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony from T. M., the mother ("the Mother") of the child-victim ("A.W."). The Mother noted she had observed similarities between the clothing worn by Defendant when her child identified him as the kidnapper on the day of his arrest and the hearsay evidence of the child's statements describing the clothing worn by the kidnapper six days earlier, when A.W. was kidnapped.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not plainly err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

*165The judgment is affirmed under Rules 30.25.¹

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

PER CURIAM

John Billingsley ("Defendant") appeals judgment entered after a jury verdict convicting him of the class A felony of child kidnapping. Defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender.

For his only point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting allegedly inadmissible and prejudicial testimony from T. M., the mother ("the Mother") of the child-victim ("A.W."). The Mother noted she had observed similarities between the clothing worn by Defendant when her child identified him as the kidnapper on the day of his arrest and the hearsay evidence of the child's statements describing the clothing worn by the kidnapper six days earlier, when A.W. was kidnapped.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not plainly err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for use of the parties setting forth the reasons for the decision.

*165The judgment is affirmed under Rules 30.25.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.W.3d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-billingsley-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack