State v. MEHIC

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. MEHIC

358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 143, 2012 WL 386321

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketED 96237

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 358 S.W.3d 562 (State v. MEHIC) 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. MEHIC, 358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 143, 2012 WL 386321 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samir Mehic appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for assault in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.060, RSMo Supp.2010, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for Which he was sentenced to seven-years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samir Mehic appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for assault in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.060, RSMo Supp.2010, and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for Which he was sentenced to seven-years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

358 S.W.3d 562, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 143, 2012 WL 386321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mehic-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack