State v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Miller

190 S.W.3d 557, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2006 WL 1147364

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 2, 2006

DocketED 85859

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 557 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 190 S.W.3d 557, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2006 WL 1147364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

*558 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Larry Miller, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for second-degree felony murder, Section 565.021 RSMo 2000, first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, first-degree assault, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. The defendant raises three points on appeal, assigning error in the trial court’s refusal to submit his proffered instructions on self-defense, involuntary manslaughter, and third-degree assault.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

*558 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Larry Miller, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for second-degree felony murder, Section 565.021 RSMo 2000, first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, first-degree assault, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, and three counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. The defendant raises three points on appeal, assigning error in the trial court’s refusal to submit his proffered instructions on self-defense, involuntary manslaughter, and third-degree assault.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 557, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 586, 2006 WL 1147364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack