State v. BOMBACK

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. BOMBACK

195 S.W.3d 444, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 947, 2006 WL 1737426

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 27, 2006·No. ED 86798·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard J. Bomback (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of first degree statutory sodomy. Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred in allowing testimony at trial regarding his invocation of the right to counsel during an interview.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Richard J. Bomback (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of first degree statutory sodomy. Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred in allowing testimony at trial regarding his invocation of the right to counsel during an interview.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

State v. BOMBACK, 195 S.W.3d 444, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 947, 2006 WL 1737426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

195 S.W.3d 444 (State v. BOMBACK) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related