State v. McClendon

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McClendon

157 S.W.3d 343, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 282, 2005 WL 406289

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 84351

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 343 (State v. McClendon) 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. McClendon, 157 S.W.3d 343, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 282, 2005 WL 406289 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald C. McClendon (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of attempted stealing of a motor vehicle, Section 564.011, RSMo 2000, and Section 570.030.3(3), RSMo Cum.Supp. 2004, for which Defendant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender under Section 558.016, RSMo Cum.Supp.2004.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald C. McClendon (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of attempted stealing of a motor vehicle, Section 564.011, RSMo 2000, and Section 570.030.3(3), RSMo Cum.Supp. 2004, for which Defendant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender under Section 558.016, RSMo Cum.Supp.2004.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 343, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 282, 2005 WL 406289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcclendon-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack