State v. HAIDUL

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. HAIDUL

334 S.W.3d 920, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 397, 2011 WL 1004681

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2011

DocketED 93923

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 334 S.W.3d 920 (State v. HAIDUL) 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. HAIDUL, 334 S.W.3d 920, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 397, 2011 WL 1004681 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Haidul appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury found him guilty of first degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

John Haidul appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence after a jury found him guilty of first degree robbery. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 S.W.3d 920, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 397, 2011 WL 1004681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haidul-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack