State v. Owsley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Owsley

91 S.W.3d 704, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2365, 2002 WL 31752217

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 2002

DocketED 80590

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 S.W.3d 704 (State v. Owsley) 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. Owsley, 91 S.W.3d 704, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2365, 2002 WL 31752217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Michael D. Owsley (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a bench trial finding him guilty of stealing by deceit, in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo Cum.Supp.1997. The trial court sentenced Defendant to five years imprisonment, subject to the callback provisions of Section 559.115 RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only 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.

Michael D. Owsley (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a bench trial finding him guilty of stealing by deceit, in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo Cum.Supp.1997. The trial court sentenced Defendant to five years imprisonment, subject to the callback provisions of Section 559.115 RSMo 2000.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 S.W.3d 704, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 2365, 2002 WL 31752217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-owsley-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack