State v. Randolph

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Randolph

3 S.W.3d 845, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1331, 1999 WL 639315

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 24, 1999

DocketNo. ED 74910

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 S.W.3d 845 (State v. Randolph) 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. Randolph, 3 S.W.3d 845, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1331, 1999 WL 639315 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Melvin Randolph (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of six counts of second degree statutory sodomy in violation of § 566.064 RSMo 1994 and one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court erred and abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to sever trial of the statutory sodomy counts from the drug possession count, and (2) refusing on relevancy grounds to allow him to present evidence that the juvenile victim may have had sex with other men following Defendant’s arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Melvin Randolph (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of six counts of second degree statutory sodomy in violation of § 566.064 RSMo 1994 and one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.202 RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to a total of twenty-five years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant claims the trial court erred and abused its discretion in (1) denying his motion to sever trial of the statutory sodomy counts from the drug possession count, and (2) refusing on relevancy grounds to allow him to present evidence that the juvenile victim may have had sex with other men following Defendant’s arrest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.W.3d 845, 1999 Mo. App. LEXIS 1331, 1999 WL 639315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-randolph-moctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack