State v. Hickman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hickman

527 S.W.3d 892

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104530

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 892 (State v. Hickman) 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. Hickman, 527 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Raymond Hickman (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021 (RSMo. 2000), and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015 (RSMo. 2000). Appellant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of 25 years for the second-degree murder and 10 years for the armed criminal action.

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

Raymond Hickman (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021 (RSMo. 2000), and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015 (RSMo. 2000). Appellant was sentenced as a prior offender to concurrent terms of 25 years for the second-degree murder and 10 years for the armed criminal action.

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)

527 S.W.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hickman-moctapp-2017.