State v. Howard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Howard

249 S.W.3d 254, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 2008 WL 850271

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 1, 2008

DocketED 88224

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W.3d 254 (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, 249 S.W.3d 254, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 2008 WL 850271 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Howard (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered upon his conviction for trafficking in the second degree, a class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior and persistent offender to thirteen years of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Larry Howard (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered upon his conviction for trafficking in the second degree, a class A felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior and persistent offender to thirteen years of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and 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 precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.3d 254, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 430, 2008 WL 850271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howard-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack