State v. BOSSALLER

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. BOSSALLER

276 S.W.3d 393, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2009 WL 242105

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 3, 2009

DocketED 91030

StatusPublished

This text of 276 S.W.3d 393 (State v. BOSSALLER) 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. BOSSALLER, 276 S.W.3d 393, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2009 WL 242105 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Festus Bossaller, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Osage County following his conviction by a jury of first-degree burglary, in violation of section 569.160 RSMo. (2000). We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the defendant’s claim is not preserved, and we decline plain-error review.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the trial court’s 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.

The defendant, Festus Bossaller, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Osage County following his conviction by a jury of first-degree burglary, in violation of section 569.160 RSMo. (2000). We affirm the trial court’s judgment because the defendant’s claim is not preserved, and we decline plain-error review.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 393, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 79, 2009 WL 242105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bossaller-moctapp-2009.