State v. Heidebur

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Heidebur

946 S.W.2d 273, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 994, 1997 WL 289370

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1997

DocketNo. 70530

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 946 S.W.2d 273 (State v. Heidebur) 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. Heidebur, 946 S.W.2d 273, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 994, 1997 WL 289370 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s assessment to a prison term of five years. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Defendant appeals after he was convicted by a jury of sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him in accordance with the jury’s assessment to a prison term of five years. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

946 S.W.2d 273, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 994, 1997 WL 289370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heidebur-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack