State v. Combs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Combs

504 S.W.3d 70, 2016 WL 2894930, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 501

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102798

StatusPublished

This text of 504 S.W.3d 70 (State v. Combs) 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. Combs, 504 S.W.3d 70, 2016 WL 2894930, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 501 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

[71]*71 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Rico Combs appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on sixteen counts, including first-degree murder (Section 565.020), armed criminal action in connection with a burglary (Section 571.015.1), misdemeanor domestic assault (Section 565.074) and domestic assault in the first degree (Section 558.011). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim 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 or precedential 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

[71]*71 ORDER

PER CURIAM

Rico Combs appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on sixteen counts, including first-degree murder (Section 565.020), armed criminal action in connection with a burglary (Section 571.015.1), misdemeanor domestic assault (Section 565.074) and domestic assault in the first degree (Section 558.011). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim 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 or precedential 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)

504 S.W.3d 70, 2016 WL 2894930, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-combs-moctapp-2016.