State v. Freeman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Freeman

353 S.W.3d 61, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1189, 2011 WL 4037033

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 2011

DocketED 95331

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 61 (State v. Freeman) 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. Freeman, 353 S.W.3d 61, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1189, 2011 WL 4037033 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Thomas Freeman, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of the Class B Felony possession of a prohibited article in the department of corrections* in violation of section 217.360 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2008). The trial court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Thomas Freeman, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of the Class B Felony possession of a prohibited article in the department of corrections* in violation of section 217.360 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2008). The trial court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to thirty years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was then serving.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

353 S.W.3d 61, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1189, 2011 WL 4037033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-freeman-moctapp-2011.