State v. Perry

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Perry

14 S.W.3d 228, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2000 WL 155617

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 2000

DocketNo. ED 75063

StatusPublished

This text of 14 S.W.3d 228 (State v. Perry) 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. Perry, 14 S.W.3d 228, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2000 WL 155617 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lorenzo Perry (Appellant) appeals his conviction of first degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020,¹ and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony that Appellant characterizes as hearsay. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. 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.

Lorenzo Perry (Appellant) appeals his conviction of first degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020,¹ and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony that Appellant characterizes as hearsay. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.W.3d 228, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 241, 2000 WL 155617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perry-moctapp-2000.