State v. Peet

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Peet

986 S.W.2d 936, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 247

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 2, 1999

DocketNo. 74066

StatusPublished

This text of 986 S.W.2d 936 (State v. Peet) 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. Peet, 986 S.W.2d 936, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 247 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial of one count of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 1994, a class B felony, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment for first-degree assault and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action to be served consecutively. Defendant contends the trial court erred in offering the instruction for the lesser included offense because the evidence did not support the instruction. Defendant submitted the instruction complained of on appeal and concedes the error is not preserved under Rule 28.03, and therefore seeks plain error review.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Defendant cannot complain of an instruction given at his request. State v. Leisure, 796 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Mo. banc 1990); State v. Martindale, 945 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial of one count of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 1994, a class B felony, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. Defendant was sentenced to eleven years’ imprisonment for first-degree assault and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action to be served consecutively. Defendant contends the trial court erred in offering the instruction for the lesser included offense because the evidence did not support the instruction. Defendant submitted the instruction complained of on appeal and concedes the error is not preserved under Rule 28.03, and therefore seeks plain error review.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. Defendant cannot complain of an instruction given at his request. State v. Leisure, 796 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Mo. banc 1990); State v. Martindale, 945 S.W.2d 669, 674 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

986 S.W.2d 936, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peet-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack