State v. Davis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

310 S.W.3d 302, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 2010 WL 1860786

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 11, 2010

DocketED 93247

StatusPublished

This text of 310 S.W.3d 302 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 310 S.W.3d 302, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 2010 WL 1860786 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Davis (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree trespass, Section 569.140 RSMo (2000) 1 , second degree domestic assault, Section 565.073, and second degree property damage, Section 569.120. Appellant was sentenced to a term of six months’ imprisonment on the trespass and property damage counts, and five years’ imprisonment on the second degree domestic assault count, to run concurrently. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence a letter he wrote to the victim after he was incarcerated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. State v. Mabry, 285 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Davis (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of first degree trespass, Section 569.140 RSMo (2000) 1 , second degree domestic assault, Section 565.073, and second degree property damage, Section 569.120. Appellant was sentenced to a term of six months’ imprisonment on the trespass and property damage counts, and five years’ imprisonment on the second degree domestic assault count, to run concurrently. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence a letter he wrote to the victim after he was incarcerated.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting this evidence. State v. Mabry, 285 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 S.W.3d 302, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 2010 WL 1860786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack