State v. McClinton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McClinton

530 S.W.3d 629

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 17, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104384

StatusPublished

This text of 530 S.W.3d 629 (State v. McClinton) 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. McClinton, 530 S.W.3d 629 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cortez McClinton (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021;¹ kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110 Cum. Supp. 2013; first-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.120 Cum. Supp. 2013; and three counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, associated with each of the first three offenses. Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance, plainly erred in entering a written judgment and sentence that varied from the oral pronouncement of sentence, and plainly erred in refusing to give the jury instruction for felonious restraint as a lesser-included offense for kidnapping.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion 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.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).²

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Cortez McClinton (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021;¹ kidnapping, in violation of Section 565.110 Cum. Supp. 2013; first-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.120 Cum. Supp. 2013; and three counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, associated with each of the first three offenses. Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance, plainly erred in entering a written judgment and sentence that varied from the oral pronouncement of sentence, and plainly erred in refusing to give the jury instruction for felonious restraint as a lesser-included offense for kidnapping.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion 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.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).²

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.3d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcclinton-moctapp-2017.