State v. Gilmore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gilmore

249 S.W.3d 215, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2008 WL 495427

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 26, 2008

DocketED 89447

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 S.W.3d 215 (State v. Gilmore) 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. Gilmore, 249 S.W.3d 215, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2008 WL 495427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rex Gilmore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of incest, Section 568.020, RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts three errors: 1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Missouri’s Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law and violated Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process by delaying the full resolution of Defendant’s case more than 180 days from receipt of Defendant’s request for a disposition of detain-ers; 2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and 3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and admitting an audio-taped statement made to police post-arrest.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rex Gilmore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of one count of incest, Section 568.020, RSMo 2000. Defendant asserts three errors: 1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Missouri’s Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law and violated Defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to a speedy trial and due process by delaying the full resolution of Defendant’s case more than 180 days from receipt of Defendant’s request for a disposition of detain-ers; 2) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal; and 3) the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and admitting an audio-taped statement made to police post-arrest.

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)

249 S.W.3d 215, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 263, 2008 WL 495427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gilmore-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack