State v. HEMINGHAUS

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. HEMINGHAUS

303 S.W.3d 158, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2010 WL 522695

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 91966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 158 (State v. HEMINGHAUS) 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. HEMINGHAUS, 303 S.W.3d 158, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2010 WL 522695 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Catherine Heminghaus (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted her of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.064 RSMo (2000), two counts of sexual contact with a student, Section 566.086 RSMo (2000), and two counts of supplying intoxicating liquor to a minor, Section 311.310 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2005). The trial court sentenced Appellant to six years’ imprisonment and imposed fines in the amount of $1,000. Appellant raises seven points on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth 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.

Catherine Heminghaus (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted her of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.064 RSMo (2000), two counts of sexual contact with a student, Section 566.086 RSMo (2000), and two counts of supplying intoxicating liquor to a minor, Section 311.310 RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2005). The trial court sentenced Appellant to six years’ imprisonment and imposed fines in the amount of $1,000. Appellant raises seven points on appeal.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 158, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 168, 2010 WL 522695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heminghaus-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack