State v. Howard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Howard

155 S.W.3d 803, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 127, 2005 WL 147426

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

DocketED 83771

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.W.3d 803 (State v. Howard) 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. Howard, 155 S.W.3d 803, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 127, 2005 WL 147426 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ivory Lee Howard (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree tampering, in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo 2000. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender, subject to an extended term of imprisonment, and sentenced Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Ivory Lee Howard (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree tampering, in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo 2000. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender, subject to an extended term of imprisonment, and sentenced Defendant to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 S.W.3d 803, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 127, 2005 WL 147426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-moctapp-2005.