State v. Ramirez

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ramirez

527 S.W.3d 892

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 12, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104652

StatusPublished

This text of 527 S.W.3d 892 (State v. Ramirez) 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. Ramirez, 527 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jose Ramirez (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of rape in the second degree, in violation of Section 566.031, RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of felonious restraint, in violation of Section 565.120. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six-years’ imprisonment on the rape count and suspended the imposition of sentence on the felonious restraint count, placing Defendant on probation for five years. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties,' the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

Jose Ramirez (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of rape in the second degree, in violation of Section 566.031, RSMo 2000,¹ and one count of felonious restraint, in violation of Section 565.120. The trial court sentenced Defendant to six-years’ imprisonment on the rape count and suspended the imposition of sentence on the felonious restraint count, placing Defendant on probation for five years. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties,' the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 S.W.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramirez-moctapp-2017.