State v. Cody

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cody

155 S.W.3d 772, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 37, 2005 WL 43061

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 11, 2005

DocketED 83908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 S.W.3d 772 (State v. Cody) 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. Cody, 155 S.W.3d 772, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 37, 2005 WL 43061 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James J. Cody (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting Appellant of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, sexual abuse, attempted forcible rape, felonious restraint, and first-degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion, and its judgment was supported by sufficient evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James J. Cody (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting Appellant of forcible rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, sexual abuse, attempted forcible rape, felonious restraint, and first-degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion, and its judgment was supported by sufficient evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.W.3d 772, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 37, 2005 WL 43061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cody-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack