State v. Clark

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Clark

476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2015 WL 7253158

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102362

StatusPublished

This text of 476 S.W.3d 311 (State v. Clark) 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. Clark, 476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2015 WL 7253158 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Joseph Clark (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000¹; one count of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060; one count of incest, in violation of Section 568.020; and one count of abuse' of a child) in violation of Section 568.060. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty-years’ imprisonment for forcible rape, thirty-years’ imprisonment for forcible sodomy, four-years’ imprisonment for incest, and seven-years’ imprisonment for abuse of a child. The trial court ordered the thirty-year sentences to run concurrently with each other, the four and seven-year sentences to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the thirty-year sentences, for a total of thirty-seven years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the 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

Joseph Clark (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000¹; one count of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060; one count of incest, in violation of Section 568.020; and one count of abuse' of a child) in violation of Section 568.060. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty-years’ imprisonment for forcible rape, thirty-years’ imprisonment for forcible sodomy, four-years’ imprisonment for incest, and seven-years’ imprisonment for abuse of a child. The trial court ordered the thirty-year sentences to run concurrently with each other, the four and seven-year sentences to run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to the thirty-year sentences, for a total of thirty-seven years’ imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 S.W.3d 311, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1169, 2015 WL 7253158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-clark-moctapp-2015.