State v. Meeks

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Meeks

363 S.W.3d 178, 2012 WL 381770, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 151

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 2012·No. ED 96903·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Decalos Meeks appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree tampering of a motor vehicle and resisting or interfering with arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony of the complaining witness. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo. banc 1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Decalos Meeks appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of first-degree tampering of a motor vehicle and resisting or interfering with arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain testimony of the complaining witness. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 55 (Mo. banc 1998). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

State v. Meeks, 363 S.W.3d 178, 2012 WL 381770, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 151 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

363 S.W.3d 178 (State v. Meeks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related