State v. Garrett

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Garrett

343 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 933, 2011 WL 2682112

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 12, 2011

DocketWD 71363

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 343 S.W.3d 369 (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, 343 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 933, 2011 WL 2682112 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

*370 Order

PER CURIAM:

Henry E. Garrett appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County after a jury found him guilty of seven counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.062 RSMo 2000; two counts of first-degree child molestation, § 566.067 RSMo 2000; and one count of first-degree statutory rape, § 566.032 RSMo 2000. On appeal, Garrett argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no error, we affirm in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a memorandum of law explaining our ruling today. Rule 30.25(b).

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

*370 Order

PER CURIAM:

Henry E. Garrett appeals from the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of Cass County after a jury found him guilty of seven counts of first-degree statutory sodomy, § 566.062 RSMo 2000; two counts of first-degree child molestation, § 566.067 RSMo 2000; and one count of first-degree statutory rape, § 566.032 RSMo 2000. On appeal, Garrett argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal as to one count of first-degree statutory sodomy, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Finding no error, we affirm in this per curiam order and have provided the parties a memorandum of law explaining our ruling today. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

343 S.W.3d 369, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 933, 2011 WL 2682112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-garrett-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack