State v. O'Neal

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. O'Neal

393 S.W.3d 141, 2013 WL 815981, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 269

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 2013

DocketNo. ED 97342

StatusPublished

This text of 393 S.W.3d 141 (State v. O'Neal) 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. O'Neal, 393 S.W.3d 141, 2013 WL 815981, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 269 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Anthony O’Neal appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 2000,¹ for which he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Anthony O’Neal appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of second-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 2000,¹ for which he was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 S.W.3d 141, 2013 WL 815981, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oneal-moctapp-2013.