State v. Blakemore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Blakemore

326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1573, 2010 WL 4628138

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 16, 2010

DocketED 93877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 326 S.W.3d 502 (State v. Blakemore) 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. Blakemore, 326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1573, 2010 WL 4628138 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Blakemore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000, and kidnapping, Section 565.101, RSMo Cum.Supp.2009, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to a total of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to dismiss for improper joinder and for severance, and (2) in refusing his presence at or near the scene instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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.

David Blakemore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo 2000, and kidnapping, Section 565.101, RSMo Cum.Supp.2009, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to a total of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to dismiss for improper joinder and for severance, and (2) in refusing his presence at or near the scene instruction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. 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)

326 S.W.3d 502, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1573, 2010 WL 4628138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blakemore-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack