State v. Martin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Martin

169 S.W.3d 557, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2005 WL 2007017

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 23, 2005

DocketED 84822

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.W.3d 557 (State v. Martin) 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. Martin, 169 S.W.3d 557, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2005 WL 2007017 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Martin (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of burglary in the second degree, Section 569.170 RSMo (2000), and resisting arrest, Section 575.150 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of eight years imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections for burglary and one year in the medium security institution for resisting arrest. Defendant raises three points on appeal, claiming he had a valid Batson challenge, there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of resisting arrest, and the State made improper and prejudicial comments during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extend *558 ed opinion would have no precedential value.

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.

Charles Martin (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of burglary in the second degree, Section 569.170 RSMo (2000), and resisting arrest, Section 575.150 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of eight years imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections for burglary and one year in the medium security institution for resisting arrest. Defendant raises three points on appeal, claiming he had a valid Batson challenge, there was insufficient evidence to support the charge of resisting arrest, and the State made improper and prejudicial comments during closing argument.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extend *558 ed opinion would have no precedential value.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.W.3d 557, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239, 2005 WL 2007017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martin-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack