State v. Graham

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Graham

454 S.W.3d 379, 2015 WL 427917

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 3, 2015·No. WD 76473·Published

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam

Llkeesha Graham appeals her convictions for fraudulent use of a debit device in violation of section 570.130, RSMo Supp. 2009, and stealing in violation of section 570.030, RSMo Supp. 2003. Graham contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other uncharged acts. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm Graham’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam

Llkeesha Graham appeals her convictions for fraudulent use of a debit device in violation of section 570.130, RSMo Supp. 2009, and stealing in violation of section 570.030, RSMo Supp. 2003. Graham contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other uncharged acts. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm Graham’s convictions. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Graham, 454 S.W.3d 379, 2015 WL 427917 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

454 S.W.3d 379 (State v. Graham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.