State v. Malone

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Malone

303 S.W.3d 166, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2010 WL 530198

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 91863

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 166 (State v. Malone) 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. Malone, 303 S.W.3d 166, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2010 WL 530198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terrelle M. Malone (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of three counts of statutory rape in the second degree, Section 566.034 RSMo (2000), and one count of statutory sodomy in the second degree, Section 566.064 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to a term totaling twenty-two years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court plainly erred in admitting testimony which constituted evidence of uncharged bad acts, which he claims were irrelevant and prejudicial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terrelle M. Malone (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of three counts of statutory rape in the second degree, Section 566.034 RSMo (2000), and one count of statutory sodomy in the second degree, Section 566.064 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to a term totaling twenty-two years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court plainly erred in admitting testimony which constituted evidence of uncharged bad acts, which he claims were irrelevant and prejudicial.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 166, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 152, 2010 WL 530198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-malone-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack