State v. Mahan

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mahan

564 S.W.3d 742

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 16, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105917

StatusPublished

This text of 564 S.W.3d 742 (State v. Mahan) 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. Mahan, 564 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

John Patrick Mahan ("Appellant") appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of incest, in violation of Section 568.020 RSMo., and one count of rape in the second degree, in violation of Section 566.031. On November 27, 2017, the trial court entered judgment and sentenced Appellant to seven years on the count of incest, and a consecutive sentence of 15 years on the count of second-degree rape, for a total of 22 years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

John Patrick Mahan ("Appellant") appeals from his convictions, following a jury trial, of one count of incest, in violation of Section 568.020 RSMo., and one count of rape in the second degree, in violation of Section 566.031. On November 27, 2017, the trial court entered judgment and sentenced Appellant to seven years on the count of incest, and a consecutive sentence of 15 years on the count of second-degree rape, for a total of 22 years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 S.W.3d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mahan-moctapp-2018.