State v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Johnson

186 S.W.3d 476, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2006 WL 695218

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

DocketNo. ED 85823

StatusPublished

This text of 186 S.W.3d 476 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 186 S.W.3d 476, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2006 WL 695218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of statutory rape in the first degree, in violation of section 566.032 RSMo (2000), and statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of section 566.062 RSMo (2000). The trial court found defendant to be a persistent offender, and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the statutory rape count and thirty years imprisonment on the statutory sodomy count, to be served consecutively.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of statutory rape in the first degree, in violation of section 566.032 RSMo (2000), and statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of section 566.062 RSMo (2000). The trial court found defendant to be a persistent offender, and sentenced him to life imprisonment on the statutory rape count and thirty years imprisonment on the statutory sodomy count, to be served consecutively.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.W.3d 476, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 325, 2006 WL 695218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-moctapp-2006.