State v. Cummings

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cummings

337 S.W.3d 123, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 197, 2011 WL 601596

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2011

DocketED 94348

StatusPublished

This text of 337 S.W.3d 123 (State v. Cummings) 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. Cummings, 337 S.W.3d 123, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 197, 2011 WL 601596 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Lonzo Cummings, appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of section 571.030.1(1) RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006). The trial court found defendant to be- a prior offender and sentenced him to four years *124 imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence previously imposed on Count II of the original indictment. No error of law appears and 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 reasons for this order.

The judgment 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.

Defendant, Lonzo Cummings, appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of section 571.030.1(1) RSMo (Cum.Supp.2006). The trial court found defendant to be- a prior offender and sentenced him to four years *124 imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence previously imposed on Count II of the original indictment. No error of law appears and 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 reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

337 S.W.3d 123, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 197, 2011 WL 601596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cummings-moctapp-2011.