State v. Fulton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fulton

358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 WL 424582

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketED 96236

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 562 (State v. Fulton) 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. Fulton, 358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 WL 424582 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Fulton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions of one count of assault in the second degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, two counts of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, Section 564.011, RSMo 2000, and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to a total of twenty-one years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court (1) abused its discretion in allowing the State to ask the venire panel if they would require the State to produce a weapon in order to convict Defendant, and (2) erred in submitting Instruction No. 14, a separate offense instruction telling the jury to consider each count separately, because the instruction misstated the law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating 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 this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Fulton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions of one count of assault in the second degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, two counts of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, Section 564.011, RSMo 2000, and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced to a total of twenty-one years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court (1) abused its discretion in allowing the State to ask the venire panel if they would require the State to produce a weapon in order to convict Defendant, and (2) erred in submitting Instruction No. 14, a separate offense instruction telling the jury to consider each count separately, because the instruction misstated the law.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating 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 this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 WL 424582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fulton-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack