State v. Joyner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Joyner

373 S.W.3d 25, 2012 WL 2107874, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 787

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 2012

DocketNo. ED 96770

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 373 S.W.3d 25 (State v. Joyner) 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. Joyner, 373 S.W.3d 25, 2012 WL 2107874, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 787 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Jonathan L. Joyner, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo (2000); assault in the first degree, in violation of section 565.050 RSMo (2000); and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder count and ten years imprisonment on each of the remaining counts, to be served concurrently.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Defendant, Jonathan L. Joyner, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, in violation of section 565.020 RSMo (2000); assault in the first degree, in violation of section 565.050 RSMo (2000); and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on the murder count and ten years imprisonment on each of the remaining counts, to be served concurrently.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 S.W.3d 25, 2012 WL 2107874, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-joyner-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack