State v. Douglas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Douglas

573 S.W.3d 766

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106226

StatusPublished

This text of 573 S.W.3d 766 (State v. Douglas) 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. Douglas, 573 S.W.3d 766 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

David Douglas ("Appellant") appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, in violation of Section 565.083, and one count of resisting a lawful stop, in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2013. Appellant, a persistent offender, was sentenced to one year for the assault and seven years for resisting arrest to run concurrently for a total of seven years.

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

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM

David Douglas ("Appellant") appeals from his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, in violation of Section 565.083, and one count of resisting a lawful stop, in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2013. Appellant, a persistent offender, was sentenced to one year for the assault and seven years for resisting arrest to run concurrently for a total of seven years.

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

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 S.W.3d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-douglas-moctapp-2019.