State v. Griggs

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Griggs

7 S.W.3d 4, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1854, 1999 WL 731629

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 21, 1999

DocketNo. ED 75083

StatusPublished

This text of 7 S.W.3d 4 (State v. Griggs) 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. Griggs, 7 S.W.3d 4, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1854, 1999 WL 731629 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER .

PER CURIAM.

Larry Griggs (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of first degree assault, section 565.050 RSMo 1994, armed criminal action, section 571.015 RSMo 1994, first degree burglary, section 569.160 RSMo 1994, and unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030(4) RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years, twenty years, fifteen years, and five years, respectively.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion, for their usé only, explaining the reasons for our decision.

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.

Larry Griggs (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of first degree assault, section 565.050 RSMo 1994, armed criminal action, section 571.015 RSMo 1994, first degree burglary, section 569.160 RSMo 1994, and unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030(4) RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to concurrent prison terms of twenty-five years, twenty years, fifteen years, and five years, respectively.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would be of no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion, for their usé only, explaining the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 S.W.3d 4, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1854, 1999 WL 731629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-griggs-moctapp-1999.