State v. BLANKLEY

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. BLANKLEY

229 S.W.3d 606, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2002 WL 1013570

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 21, 2002

DocketED 79879

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.W.3d 606 (State v. BLANKLEY) 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. BLANKLEY, 229 S.W.3d 606, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2002 WL 1013570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Timothy D. Blankley, appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree child molestation, in violation of section 565.067, RSMo 2000. He argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting evidence of his sexual practices with adult women.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude *607 no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the admission of this evidence. Rule 30.20. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Timothy D. Blankley, appeals the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first degree child molestation, in violation of section 565.067, RSMo 2000. He argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting evidence of his sexual practices with adult women.

Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude *607 no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the admission of this evidence. Rule 30.20. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.3d 606, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1104, 2002 WL 1013570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blankley-moctapp-2002.