State v. Gray

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gray

317 S.W.3d 99, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 617, 2010 WL 1860822

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 11, 2010·No. ED 93049·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Quintín Gray (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following his conviction by a jury, of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030, RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced, as a prior offender, to four years of imprisonment. Finding no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment 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.

Quintín Gray (Defendant) appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, following his conviction by a jury, of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030, RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced, as a prior offender, to four years of imprisonment. Finding no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice, we affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find Defendant is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Gray, 317 S.W.3d 99, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 617, 2010 WL 1860822 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

317 S.W.3d 99 (State v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related