State v. Garrett

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Garrett

266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 2008 WL 4634874

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 90642

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 342 (State v. Garrett) 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. Garrett, 266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 2008 WL 4634874 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*343 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo D. Garrett (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction, following a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000. Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of robbery in the second degree.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

*343 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo D. Garrett (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction, following a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000. Defendant argues the trial court plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of robbery in the second degree.

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 would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 342, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1416, 2008 WL 4634874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-garrett-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack