State v. LeFLORE

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. LeFLORE

254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 783, 2008 WL 2345893

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2008

DocketED 89285

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 S.W.3d 904 (State v. LeFLORE) 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. LeFLORE, 254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 783, 2008 WL 2345893 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kavin 0. LeFlore (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of six counts of statutory sodomy in the second degree, Section 566.064, RSMo 2000, and three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, Section 573.023, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to a total of thirty years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court: (1) erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in entering judgment on the verdict of guilty on one of the four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy; and (2) plainly erred in not sua sponte instructing the jury to disregard the State’s improper statements during opening and closing arguments. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Kavin 0. LeFlore (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of six counts of statutory sodomy in the second degree, Section 566.064, RSMo 2000, and three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, Section 573.023, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to a total of thirty years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court: (1) erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in entering judgment on the verdict of guilty on one of the four counts of second-degree statutory sodomy; and (2) plainly erred in not sua sponte instructing the jury to disregard the State’s improper statements during opening and closing arguments. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 S.W.3d 904, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 783, 2008 WL 2345893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leflore-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack