State v. Howard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Howard

233 S.W.3d 765, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 2007 WL 2769437

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2007

DocketED 88877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 233 S.W.3d 765 (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, 233 S.W.3d 765, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 2007 WL 2769437 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Devlyn Howard appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of *766 Section 569.020, 1 one count of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030, and one count of resisting arrest, in violation of Section 575.150.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree robbery. See State v. Lawshea, 798 S.W.2d 198, 199-200 (Mo.App. E.D.1990). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise stated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Devlyn Howard appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of *766 Section 569.020, 1 one count of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030, and one count of resisting arrest, in violation of Section 575.150.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree robbery. See State v. Lawshea, 798 S.W.2d 198, 199-200 (Mo.App. E.D.1990). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise stated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 S.W.3d 765, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1322, 2007 WL 2769437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack