State v. Mack

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mack

725 S.W.2d 78, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3542

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 1987

DocketNo. 51282

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 725 S.W.2d 78 (State v. Mack) 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. Mack, 725 S.W.2d 78, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3542 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Freddie Mack appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, for two counts of first degree assault, two counts of first degree robbery, and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of thirty years on the assault convictions, two concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years on the robbery offenses, and a consecutive term of life imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. The Points raised on appeal were not preserved in the trial court for appellate review and would therefore be reviewable only as “plain error” pursuant to Rule 30.20. We find that no manifest injustice nor miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed 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 Freddie Mack appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, for two counts of first degree assault, two counts of first degree robbery, and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of thirty years on the assault convictions, two concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years on the robbery offenses, and a consecutive term of life imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. The Points raised on appeal were not preserved in the trial court for appellate review and would therefore be reviewable only as “plain error” pursuant to Rule 30.20. We find that no manifest injustice nor miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 S.W.2d 78, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mack-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack