State v. Gordon

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gordon

182 S.W.3d 716, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 87, 2006 WL 163202

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2006

DocketED 85559

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 716 (State v. Gordon) 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. Gordon, 182 S.W.3d 716, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 87, 2006 WL 163202 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ronald Gordon (“Defendant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a bench trial, in which he was convicted of domestic assault in the first degree (Count I), section 565.072, RSMo 2000, 1 and armed criminal action (Count II), section 571.015. Defendant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for Count I and three years of imprisonment for Count II, with the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ronald Gordon (“Defendant”), appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following a bench trial, in which he was convicted of domestic assault in the first degree (Count I), section 565.072, RSMo 2000, 1 and armed criminal action (Count II), section 571.015. Defendant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for Count I and three years of imprisonment for Count II, with the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 716, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 87, 2006 WL 163202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gordon-moctapp-2006.