State v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Moore

70 S.W.3d 628, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 521, 2002 WL 417345

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79516

StatusPublished

This text of 70 S.W.3d 628 (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, 70 S.W.3d 628, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 521, 2002 WL 417345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John G. Moore (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following a jury trial finding him guilty of two counts of forgery, section 570.090., RSMo 2000.¹ Defendant was sentenced to three years for Count I and four years for Count II to be served in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant received suspended execution of sentence for Count I and suspended imposition of sentence for Count II. Defendant was also ordered to pay $3,929.03 restitution. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, John G. Moore (“defendant”), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County following a jury trial finding him guilty of two counts of forgery, section 570.090., RSMo 2000.¹ Defendant was sentenced to three years for Count I and four years for Count II to be served in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Defendant received suspended execution of sentence for Count I and suspended imposition of sentence for Count II. Defendant was also ordered to pay $3,929.03 restitution. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 S.W.3d 628, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 521, 2002 WL 417345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-moctapp-2002.