State v. Nicholson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nicholson

84 S.W.3d 491, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1830, 2002 WL 2004689

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 3, 2002

DocketNo. ED 80084

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 84 S.W.3d 491 (State v. Nicholson) 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. Nicholson, 84 S.W.3d 491, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1830, 2002 WL 2004689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Darius Nicholson, appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions for second-degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo.2000,¹ armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and first-degree robbery, Section 569.030. In his sole point on appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred when it sustained the State’s objection and refused to permit the defendant to question Michael Hatcher about [492]*492what he had told his attorney. Finding that the defendant’s point relied on preserves nothing for our review, we affirm.

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

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.

Defendant, Darius Nicholson, appeals from the judgment entered upon his convictions for second-degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo.2000,¹ armed criminal action, Section 571.015, and first-degree robbery, Section 569.030. In his sole point on appeal, the defendant contends the trial court erred when it sustained the State’s objection and refused to permit the defendant to question Michael Hatcher about [492]*492what he had told his attorney. Finding that the defendant’s point relied on preserves nothing for our review, we affirm.

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

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W.3d 491, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1830, 2002 WL 2004689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nicholson-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack