State v. Holt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Holt

963 S.W.2d 722, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 541, 1998 WL 128575

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1998

DocketNo. 72348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 963 S.W.2d 722 (State v. Holt) 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. Holt, 963 S.W.2d 722, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 541, 1998 WL 128575 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Holt, Defendant, appeals the judgment entered upon the jury verdict convicting him of one count of statutory rape in the first degree in violation of § 566.032, RSMo 1994, and one count of statutory sodomy in the first degree in violation of § 566.062, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of thirty years imprisonment on the statutory rape charge and thirty years imprisonment on the statutory sodomy charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and we affirm by summary order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Holt, Defendant, appeals the judgment entered upon the jury verdict convicting him of one count of statutory rape in the first degree in violation of § 566.032, RSMo 1994, and one count of statutory sodomy in the first degree in violation of § 566.062, RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of thirty years imprisonment on the statutory rape charge and thirty years imprisonment on the statutory sodomy charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and we affirm by summary order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

963 S.W.2d 722, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 541, 1998 WL 128575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-holt-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack