State v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Moore

983 S.W.2d 219, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 25

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 12, 1999

DocketNos. 66339, 73587

StatusPublished

This text of 983 S.W.2d 219 (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, 983 S.W.2d 219, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury on eight counts of sodomy, section 566.060 RSMo 1994, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child, section 568.045 RSMo 1994. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in: (1)admitting evidence of prior uncharged crimes allegedly committed by defendant and (2)entering a judgment against him on eight counts of sodomy in that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the information and amended information failed to allege facts sufficient to apprise defendant of the charges against him. Defendant’s post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is therefore denied.

We have examined the briefs and the record on appeal. We find no error, plain or otherwise. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential value. 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 the trial court’s judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury on eight counts of sodomy, section 566.060 RSMo 1994, and five counts of endangering the welfare of a child, section 568.045 RSMo 1994. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court plainly erred in: (1)admitting evidence of prior uncharged crimes allegedly committed by defendant and (2)entering a judgment against him on eight counts of sodomy in that the trial court was without jurisdiction because the information and amended information failed to allege facts sufficient to apprise defendant of the charges against him. Defendant’s post conviction relief appeal has been abandoned and is therefore denied.

We have examined the briefs and the record on appeal. We find no error, plain or otherwise. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

983 S.W.2d 219, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-moctapp-1999.