State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

125 S.W.3d 362, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 39, 2004 WL 76430

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 20, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82280

StatusPublished

This text of 125 S.W.3d 362 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 125 S.W.3d 362, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 39, 2004 WL 76430 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darris Jones (“Defendant”) was tried on three counts of robbery, three counts of armed criminal action, and one count of possession of a controlled substance arising out of three separate incidents. The jury convicted him of one count of robbery, one count of armed criminal action, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appeals the judgments entered on the jury verdicts for the counts of robbery and armed criminal action. He alleges that charges related to three separate incidents were improperly joined.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Defendant’s point is without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided [363]*363a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment entered on the verdict 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.

Darris Jones (“Defendant”) was tried on three counts of robbery, three counts of armed criminal action, and one count of possession of a controlled substance arising out of three separate incidents. The jury convicted him of one count of robbery, one count of armed criminal action, and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appeals the judgments entered on the jury verdicts for the counts of robbery and armed criminal action. He alleges that charges related to three separate incidents were improperly joined.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that Defendant’s point is without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided [363]*363a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment entered on the verdict pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.3d 362, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 39, 2004 WL 76430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-2004.