State v. Maurer

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Maurer

566 S.W.3d 266

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106080

StatusPublished

This text of 566 S.W.3d 266 (State v. Maurer) 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. Maurer, 566 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Robert Maurer ("Maurer") appeals the trial court's judgment following a jury trial convicting him of attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree and failing to register as a sex offender. Maurer argues the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree statutory sodomy as a lesser included offense of first-degree statutory sodomy pursuant to Section 556.046.2-3.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*267The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM

Robert Maurer ("Maurer") appeals the trial court's judgment following a jury trial convicting him of attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree and failing to register as a sex offender. Maurer argues the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on second-degree statutory sodomy as a lesser included offense of first-degree statutory sodomy pursuant to Section 556.046.2-3.

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 opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*267The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 S.W.3d 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-maurer-moctapp-2019.