State v. Owens

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Owens

326 S.W.3d 852, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684, 2010 WL 5084351

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 14, 2010

DocketED 94228

StatusPublished

This text of 326 S.W.3d 852 (State v. Owens) 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. Owens, 326 S.W.3d 852, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684, 2010 WL 5084351 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael Owens (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled Appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument about Appellant’s prior conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection. State v. Williams, 277 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Michael Owens (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled Appellant’s objection to the prosecutor’s comments during closing argument about Appellant’s prior conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant’s objection. State v. Williams, 277 S.W.3d 848, 853 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

326 S.W.3d 852, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1684, 2010 WL 5084351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-owens-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack