State v. Irving

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Irving

347 S.W.3d 175, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2011 WL 3807574

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 30, 2011

DocketED 95315

StatusPublished

This text of 347 S.W.3d 175 (State v. Irving) 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. Irving, 347 S.W.3d 175, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2011 WL 3807574 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwone Irving (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for one count of burglary in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, 1 and two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, and a consecutive term of five-years’ imprisonment for burglary. We affirm.

*176 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 serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2000, as amended in RSMo Cum.Supp.2008.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwone Irving (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury for one count of burglary in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, 1 and two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of Section 566.060, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to two concurrent terms of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, and a consecutive term of five-years’ imprisonment for burglary. We affirm.

*176 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 serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 2000, as amended in RSMo Cum.Supp.2008.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

347 S.W.3d 175, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1139, 2011 WL 3807574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-irving-moctapp-2011.