State v. Gillispie

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gillispie

353 S.W.3d 701, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1604, 2011 WL 6042375

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 2011

DocketED 95560

StatusPublished

This text of 353 S.W.3d 701 (State v. Gillispie) 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. Gillispie, 353 S.W.3d 701, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1604, 2011 WL 6042375 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Artoska Gillispie appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of one count of first-degree robbery and one count of misdemeanor marijuana possession. Defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing a police detective to testify that he felt the right individual was in custody. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Artoska Gillispie appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of one count of first-degree robbery and one count of misdemeanor marijuana possession. Defendant argues the trial court erred by allowing a police detective to testify that he felt the right individual was in custody. 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)

353 S.W.3d 701, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1604, 2011 WL 6042375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gillispie-moctapp-2011.