State v. McClellan

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McClellan

283 S.W.3d 315, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 709, 2009 WL 1450083

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 26, 2009

DocketED 91390

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 S.W.3d 315 (State v. McClellan) 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. McClellan, 283 S.W.3d 315, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 709, 2009 WL 1450083 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie McClellan (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and two counts of kidnapping, Section 565.110. Appellant was sentenced to six terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently. Appellant raises two points on appeal. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion when: (1) it admitted the victims’ in and out of court identifications of Appellant in that the identifications were so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable; and (2) it permitted the State to ask the venire panel whether it would require physical evidence in order to convict Appellant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential 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).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ronnie McClellan (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000), 1 two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and two counts of kidnapping, Section 565.110. Appellant was sentenced to six terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently. Appellant raises two points on appeal. Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion when: (1) it admitted the victims’ in and out of court identifications of Appellant in that the identifications were so unduly suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification and render the identifications unreliable; and (2) it permitted the State to ask the venire panel whether it would require physical evidence in order to convict Appellant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential 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).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 315, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 709, 2009 WL 1450083, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcclellan-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack