State v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Brown

986 S.W.2d 520, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 211

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1999

DocketNo. 73848

StatusPublished

This text of 986 S.W.2d 520 (State v. Brown) 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. Brown, 986 S.W.2d 520, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 211 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Brown (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County wherein the court sentenced defendant as a prior and persistent offender after he pled guilty to first degree tampering, RSMo section 569.080 (1994). Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prior and persistent offender because the records offered by the State were insufficient to support such a finding. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is attached solely for the use of the parties involved.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Charles Brown (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County wherein the court sentenced defendant as a prior and persistent offender after he pled guilty to first degree tampering, RSMo section 569.080 (1994). Defendant contends the trial court erred in sentencing him as a prior and persistent offender because the records offered by the State were insufficient to support such a finding. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision is attached solely for the use of the parties involved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 S.W.2d 520, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-1999.