State v. Rhoden

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rhoden

976 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1606, 1998 WL 668399

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 8, 1998

DocketNo. 73202

StatusPublished

This text of 976 S.W.2d 580 (State v. Rhoden) 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. Rhoden, 976 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1606, 1998 WL 668399 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendaht Billy Rhoden appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082, RSMo 1994, armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 1994, and resisting arrest in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo Cum.Supp.1997. The trial court found he was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to two concurrent terms of thirty years imprisonment and one consecutive term of ten years imprisonment, for a total of forty years. In.his appeal, defendant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain other crimes evidence.

[581]*581We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript and find no •abuse of discretion. State v. Patterson, 847 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo.App.1993). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only 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.

Defendaht Billy Rhoden appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction by a jury of second degree assault of a law enforcement officer in violation of Section 565.082, RSMo 1994, armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 1994, and resisting arrest in violation of Section 575.150, RSMo Cum.Supp.1997. The trial court found he was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to two concurrent terms of thirty years imprisonment and one consecutive term of ten years imprisonment, for a total of forty years. In.his appeal, defendant maintains the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain other crimes evidence.

[581]*581We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the transcript and find no •abuse of discretion. State v. Patterson, 847 S.W.2d 935, 938 (Mo.App.1993). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

976 S.W.2d 580, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1606, 1998 WL 668399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rhoden-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack