State v. Patterson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Patterson

112 S.W.3d 438, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2003 WL 21383906

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 2003

DocketED 80844

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 S.W.3d 438 (State v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 112 S.W.3d 438, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2003 WL 21383906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Alvin Patterson, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of felonious restraint, and three counts of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant was sentenced ten years imprisonment for each forcible rape conviction, five years for each felonious restraint conviction, five years each for two of the unlawful use of a weapon convictions, and three years for the third unlawful use of a weapon conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties, however, have been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Alvin Patterson, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of forcible rape, two counts of felonious restraint, and three counts of unlawful use of a weapon. Defendant was sentenced ten years imprisonment for each forcible rape conviction, five years for each felonious restraint conviction, five years each for two of the unlawful use of a weapon convictions, and three years for the third unlawful use of a weapon conviction, with the sentences to be served consecutively. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The parties, however, have been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.W.3d 438, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 902, 2003 WL 21383906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-patterson-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack