State v. DIZER

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. DIZER

361 S.W.3d 8, 2008 WL 5505853, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 2, 2008

DocketED 90507

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 361 S.W.3d 8 (State v. DIZER) 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. DIZER, 361 S.W.3d 8, 2008 WL 5505853, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Dizer (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction by a jury of one count of resisting a lawful stop in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Nathaniel Dizer (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following his conviction by a jury of one count of resisting a lawful stop in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 S.W.3d 8, 2008 WL 5505853, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dizer-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack