State v. Powell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Powell

104 S.W.3d 417, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2003 WL 1961341

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 2003

DocketED 81104

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 S.W.3d 417 (State v. Powell) 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. Powell, 104 S.W.3d 417, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2003 WL 1961341 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark Powell (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery in the first *418 degree, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest pursuant to sections 569.020, 571.015, and 575.150 RSMo 2000, respectively. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motions to suppress evidence and to suppress an identification of him, in failing to determine a juror’s qualifications, and in allowing the court reporter to provide an incomplete transcript. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Mark Powell (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of robbery in the first *418 degree, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest pursuant to sections 569.020, 571.015, and 575.150 RSMo 2000, respectively. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motions to suppress evidence and to suppress an identification of him, in failing to determine a juror’s qualifications, and in allowing the court reporter to provide an incomplete transcript. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.W.3d 417, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 612, 2003 WL 1961341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-powell-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack