State v. Covington

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Covington

501 S.W.3d 914, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1116, 2016 WL 6440405

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103528

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 501 S.W.3d 914 (State v. Covington) 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. Covington, 501 S.W.3d 914, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1116, 2016 WL 6440405 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Terrance Covington (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020 (RSMo. 2000), and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent sentences of 28 years on all four counts. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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

Terrance Covington (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020 (RSMo. 2000), and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent sentences of 28 years on all four counts. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 S.W.3d 914, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1116, 2016 WL 6440405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-covington-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack