State v. Reynolds

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Reynolds

234 S.W.3d 583, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2007 WL 2363379

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 14, 2007

DocketED 87960

StatusPublished

This text of 234 S.W.3d 583 (State v. Reynolds) 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. Reynolds, 234 S.W.3d 583, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2007 WL 2363379 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Andrew Reynolds (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following convictions by a jury on one count of second degree domestic assault and one count of felonious restraint. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the domestic assault count and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the felonious restraint count, with the sentences to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Andrew Reynolds (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court following convictions by a jury on one count of second degree domestic assault and one count of felonious restraint. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment for the domestic assault count and fifteen years’ imprisonment for the felonious restraint count, with the sentences to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 S.W.3d 583, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1123, 2007 WL 2363379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-reynolds-moctapp-2007.