State v. Bridges

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bridges

180 S.W.3d 58, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1877, 2005 WL 3471799

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 84329

StatusPublished

This text of 180 S.W.3d 58 (State v. Bridges) 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. Bridges, 180 S.W.3d 58, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1877, 2005 WL 3471799 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Romell Bridges (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 one count of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202. Defendant was sentenced to serve a total of thirteen years’ imprisonment on the robbery, assault, and armed criminal action charges, and seven years’ imprisonment on the possession of a controlled substance charge, running concurrently.

Defendant raises one point on appeal. Defendant argues the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to his question to a police officer during cross-examination regarding the State’s failure to test Defendant for gunpowder residue.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 729 (Mo. banc 2002). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for *59 our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Romell Bridges (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 one count of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202. Defendant was sentenced to serve a total of thirteen years’ imprisonment on the robbery, assault, and armed criminal action charges, and seven years’ imprisonment on the possession of a controlled substance charge, running concurrently.

Defendant raises one point on appeal. Defendant argues the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s objection to his question to a police officer during cross-examination regarding the State’s failure to test Defendant for gunpowder residue.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Rutter, 93 S.W.3d 714, 729 (Mo. banc 2002). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for *59 our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 58, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1877, 2005 WL 3471799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bridges-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack