State v. Noble

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Noble

509 S.W.3d 862, 2017 WL 490465, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 104

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 7, 2017

DocketNo. 103399

StatusPublished

This text of 509 S.W.3d 862 (State v. Noble) 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. Noble, 509 S.W.3d 862, 2017 WL 490465, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 104 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Sylvester Noble (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062 (RSMo. 2000), and one count of child molestation in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.067. Appellant was sentenced to 16 years for each count of statutory sodomy and 15 years for child molestation, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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

Sylvester Noble (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.062 (RSMo. 2000), and one count of child molestation in the first degree, in violation of Section 566.067. Appellant was sentenced to 16 years for each count of statutory sodomy and 15 years for child molestation, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

509 S.W.3d 862, 2017 WL 490465, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-noble-moctapp-2017.