State v. Bridwell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bridwell

301 S.W.3d 131, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2010 WL 173283

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

DocketED 92261

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 301 S.W.3d 131 (State v. Bridwell) 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. Bridwell, 301 S.W.3d 131, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2010 WL 173283 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

' Jeffrey Bridwell (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of five counts of first degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000), 1 one count of attempted statutory rape in the first degree, Section 566.032, and one count of child molestation in the first degree, Section 566.067. Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for the statutory sodomy and attempted statutory rape convictions, and a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the child molestation conviction. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of a physician who conducted a forensic interview with the victim. Second, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for one of the statutory sodomy charges.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for 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.

' Jeffrey Bridwell (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of five counts of first degree statutory sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000), 1 one count of attempted statutory rape in the first degree, Section 566.032, and one count of child molestation in the first degree, Section 566.067. Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for the statutory sodomy and attempted statutory rape convictions, and a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment for the child molestation conviction. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of a physician who conducted a forensic interview with the victim. Second, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for one of the statutory sodomy charges.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for 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)

301 S.W.3d 131, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2010 WL 173283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bridwell-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack