State v. Dorris

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dorris

518 S.W.3d 297, 2017 WL 2333055, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 517

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 30, 2017

DocketWD 79660

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 297 (State v. Dorris) 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. Dorris, 518 S.W.3d 297, 2017 WL 2333055, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Per curiam:

Thomas Wayne Dorris (“Dorris”) appeals his conviction following a bench trial by the Circuit Court of Henry County of one count of residing as a sex offender within one-thousand feet of a school, a violation of section 566.147. Dorris was sentenced by the circuit court as a prior and persistent offender to four years of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his sentence of five years of imprisonment for failing to register his change of address, a violation of section 589.425, arising from a separate proceeding. Dorris brings one point on appeal arguing that the circuit court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew his residence was within one thousand feet of school property. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

Per curiam:

Thomas Wayne Dorris (“Dorris”) appeals his conviction following a bench trial by the Circuit Court of Henry County of one count of residing as a sex offender within one-thousand feet of a school, a violation of section 566.147. Dorris was sentenced by the circuit court as a prior and persistent offender to four years of imprisonment, to be served concurrently with his sentence of five years of imprisonment for failing to register his change of address, a violation of section 589.425, arising from a separate proceeding. Dorris brings one point on appeal arguing that the circuit court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew his residence was within one thousand feet of school property. We affirm. A memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 297, 2017 WL 2333055, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dorris-moctapp-2017.