State v. Cole

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cole

233 S.W.3d 767, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2007 WL 2769444

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88817

StatusPublished

This text of 233 S.W.3d 767 (State v. Cole) 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. Cole, 233 S.W.3d 767, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2007 WL 2769444 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Ricardo Cole (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict *768 finding him guilty of first degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 517.015, RSMo 2000. Cole was sentenced to fifteen years in count I and three years in count II to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Appellant Ricardo Cole (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict *768 finding him guilty of first degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 517.015, RSMo 2000. Cole was sentenced to fifteen years in count I and three years in count II to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties 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 would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 767, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2007 WL 2769444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cole-moctapp-2007.