State v. Crenshaw

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Crenshaw

479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 7, 2016 WL 145341

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 2016

DocketNo. ED 101427

StatusPublished

This text of 479 S.W.3d 737 (State v. Crenshaw) 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. Crenshaw, 479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 7, 2016 WL 145341 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Laron Crenshaw (“Cren-shaw”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing him of one count of the class C felony of unlawful possession of a firearm, Section 571.070, and one count of the class A misdemeanor of resisting a-lawful stop, Section 575.150. On appeal, Crenshaw contends that Section 571.070, which prohibits felons from possessing firearms, is unconstitutional.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Laron Crenshaw (“Cren-shaw”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing him of one count of the class C felony of unlawful possession of a firearm, Section 571.070, and one count of the class A misdemeanor of resisting a-lawful stop, Section 575.150. On appeal, Crenshaw contends that Section 571.070, which prohibits felons from possessing firearms, is unconstitutional.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 S.W.3d 737, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 7, 2016 WL 145341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-crenshaw-moctapp-2016.