State v. Cosby

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cosby

527 S.W.3d 188, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2017 WL 3707487

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104651

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 188 (State v. Cosby) 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. Cosby, 527 S.W.3d 188, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2017 WL 3707487 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Joel Cosby (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of two counts of rob[189]*189bery in the first degree in violation of § 569.020 (Counts 3 and 5), two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree in violation of § 564.011 (Counts 7 and 9), one count of assault in the first degree in violation of § 565.050 (Count 11), and five counts of armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 (Counts 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). Defendant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion of acquittal for Counts 9,10,11, and 12 and in denying his motions to suppress the out-of-court identifications of witnesses Kathi Pham and Daysha Johnson. Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the in-court identifications of witnesses Pham, Johnson, and Theresa Daniels. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Joel Cosby (“Defendant”) appeals his conviction of two counts of rob[189]*189bery in the first degree in violation of § 569.020 (Counts 3 and 5), two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree in violation of § 564.011 (Counts 7 and 9), one count of assault in the first degree in violation of § 565.050 (Count 11), and five counts of armed criminal action in violation of § 571.015 (Counts 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12). Defendant claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion of acquittal for Counts 9,10,11, and 12 and in denying his motions to suppress the out-of-court identifications of witnesses Kathi Pham and Daysha Johnson. Defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the in-court identifications of witnesses Pham, Johnson, and Theresa Daniels. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 188, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 836, 2017 WL 3707487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cosby-moctapp-2017.