State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

390 S.W.3d 261, 2013 WL 326933, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 98

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 29, 2013

DocketNo. ED 97822

StatusPublished

This text of 390 S.W.3d 261 (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, 390 S.W.3d 261, 2013 WL 326933, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 98 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Jones (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment following his conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030, one count of attempted forcible rape, Section 566.030, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and five counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial following the State’s questions to Defendant during cross-examination regarding robbery charges pending in a separate case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the [262]*262claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the 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.

Dennis Jones (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment following his conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030, one count of attempted forcible rape, Section 566.030, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, and five counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial following the State’s questions to Defendant during cross-examination regarding robbery charges pending in a separate case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the [262]*262claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

390 S.W.3d 261, 2013 WL 326933, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-2013.