State v. Coleman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Coleman

553 S.W.3d 892

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 14, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105558

StatusPublished

This text of 553 S.W.3d 892 (State v. Coleman) 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. Coleman, 553 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Jemel Coleman ("Appellant") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of seven felonies. In point one, Appellant argues the trial court erred by submitting jury instructions that provided for accomplice liability because there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that Appellant was an accomplice to another's crime. In point two, Appellant argues the trial court erred by declining to dismiss two armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of a firearm charges.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err in submitting jury instructions or by declining to dismiss the armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of the firearms charges. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Jemel Coleman ("Appellant") appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis convicting him of seven felonies. In point one, Appellant argues the trial court erred by submitting jury instructions that provided for accomplice liability because there was insufficient evidence to support an inference that Appellant was an accomplice to another's crime. In point two, Appellant argues the trial court erred by declining to dismiss two armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of a firearm charges.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err in submitting jury instructions or by declining to dismiss the armed criminal action charges predicated on unlawful use of the firearms charges. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 S.W.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coleman-moctapp-2018.