State v. Hall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hall

202 S.W.3d 36, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1377, 2006 WL 2671061

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86844

StatusPublished

This text of 202 S.W.3d 36 (State v. Hall) 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. Hall, 202 S.W.3d 36, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1377, 2006 WL 2671061 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Kevin Hall, appeals his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for domestic assault in the first degree, in violation of section 565.072 RSMo. (2000),¹ armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015, and violation of an order of protection, in violation of sections 455.010 and 455.085. The defendant was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to a total of eight years’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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.

The defendant, Kevin Hall, appeals his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for domestic assault in the first degree, in violation of section 565.072 RSMo. (2000),¹ armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015, and violation of an order of protection, in violation of sections 455.010 and 455.085. The defendant was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to a total of eight years’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 S.W.3d 36, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1377, 2006 WL 2671061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hall-moctapp-2006.