State v. Ivory

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ivory

383 S.W.3d 21, 2012 WL 4078869, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 18, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96414

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 383 S.W.3d 21 (State v. Ivory) 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. Ivory, 383 S.W.3d 21, 2012 WL 4078869, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher J. Ivory appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of attempted forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000 ¹, one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110, and one count of stealing from a person, in violation of Section 570.030. We affirm.

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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher J. Ivory appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of attempted forcible rape, in violation of Section 566.030, RSMo 2000 ¹, one count of kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110, and one count of stealing from a person, in violation of Section 570.030. We affirm.

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 S.W.3d 21, 2012 WL 4078869, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ivory-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack