State v. Chatman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Chatman

149 S.W.3d 544, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 2004 WL 2521173

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

DocketED 83145

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 S.W.3d 544 (State v. Chatman) 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. Chatman, 149 S.W.3d 544, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 2004 WL 2521173 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christopher Chatman (“Defendant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him as a prior offender of first degree assault, section 565.050 RSMo 2000, 1 armed criminal action, section 571.015, and victim tampering, section 575.270.2, after a jury trial. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for the first degree assault count, thirty years imprisonment for the armed criminal action count, and seven years imprisonment for the victim tampering count. All terms were consecutive. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment 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.

Appellant, Christopher Chatman (“Defendant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him as a prior offender of first degree assault, section 565.050 RSMo 2000, 1 armed criminal action, section 571.015, and victim tampering, section 575.270.2, after a jury trial. Defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment for the first degree assault count, thirty years imprisonment for the armed criminal action count, and seven years imprisonment for the victim tampering count. All terms were consecutive. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.W.3d 544, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1697, 2004 WL 2521173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chatman-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack