State v. Landrum

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Landrum

276 S.W.3d 907, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 693, 2009 WL 485996

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

DocketED 91196

StatusPublished

This text of 276 S.W.3d 907 (State v. Landrum) 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. Landrum, 276 S.W.3d 907, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 693, 2009 WL 485996 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terrish Landrum (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions for murder in the first degree, Section 565.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and life imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in sentencing Defendant because the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Terrish Landrum (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions for murder in the first degree, Section 565.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and life imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in sentencing Defendant because the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 907, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 693, 2009 WL 485996, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-landrum-moctapp-2009.