State v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Miller

472 S.W.3d 270, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1060, 2015 WL 6161349

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102051

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 270 (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, 472 S.W.3d 270, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1060, 2015 WL 6161349 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas A. Miller (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction that the Circuit Court of Audrain County entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree child molestation, two counts of second-degree child1 molestation, two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, one count of child abuse, and one count of first-degree child endangerment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude thát the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[271]*271We 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.

Thomas A. Miller (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction that the Circuit Court of Audrain County entered after a jury found him guilty of one count of first-degree child molestation, two counts of second-degree child1 molestation, two counts of second-degree statutory sodomy, one count of child abuse, and one count of first-degree child endangerment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude thát the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

[271]*271We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.3d 270, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1060, 2015 WL 6161349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-moctapp-2015.