State v. Leonard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Leonard

460 S.W.3d 480, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 358, 2015 WL 1548867

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101358

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 460 S.W.3d 480 (State v. Leonard) 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. Leonard, 460 S.W.3d 480, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 358, 2015 WL 1548867 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Richard A. Leonard, Jr. (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions for one count of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050, RSMo 2000,¹ one count of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 565.020, and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 575.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four life sentences, to be served concurrently. 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. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

Richard A. Leonard, Jr. (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions for one count of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050, RSMo 2000,¹ one count of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 565.020, and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 575.015. The trial court sentenced Defendant to four life sentences, to be served concurrently. 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. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

460 S.W.3d 480, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 358, 2015 WL 1548867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leonard-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack