State v. McNulty

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McNulty

948 S.W.2d 725, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369, 1900 WL 5532

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 1997

DocketNo. 70868

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 948 S.W.2d 725 (State v. McNulty) 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. McNulty, 948 S.W.2d 725, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369, 1900 WL 5532 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of one count of murder in the second degree, Section 565.021, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to twenty years’ imprisonment for second-degree murder with a consecutive five-year term for armed criminal action.

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.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of one count of murder in the second degree, Section 565.021, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced as a prior offender to twenty years’ imprisonment for second-degree murder with a consecutive five-year term for armed criminal action.

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)

948 S.W.2d 725, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1369, 1900 WL 5532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcnulty-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack