State v. Heyl

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Heyl

352 S.W.3d 420, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1493, 2011 WL 5374119

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 8, 2011

DocketED 95951

StatusPublished

This text of 352 S.W.3d 420 (State v. Heyl) 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. Heyl, 352 S.W.3d 420, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1493, 2011 WL 5374119 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Ronald D. Heyl, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree, in violation of section 569.020 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for robbery and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action, to be served concurrently. No error of law appears, and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Ronald D. Heyl, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery in the first degree, in violation of section 569.020 RSMo (2000), and armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for robbery and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action, to be served concurrently. No error of law appears, and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

352 S.W.3d 420, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1493, 2011 WL 5374119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heyl-moctapp-2011.