State v. Roberts

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Roberts

437 S.W.3d 828, 2014 WL 3731255, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 805

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 2014

DocketNo. ED 99943

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 437 S.W.3d 828 (State v. Roberts) 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. Roberts, 437 S.W.3d 828, 2014 WL 3731255, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Roberts (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County after a jury found him guilty of two counts of forcible sodomy with a deadly weapon, two counts of assault in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of felonious restraint. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his motion for improper joinder and failing to sever counts; (2) failing to conduct an independent inquiry into a ven-ireperson’s bias; and (3) denying his mo[829]*829tion for judgment of acquittal on double jeopardy grounds.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only 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.

Kenneth Roberts (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County after a jury found him guilty of two counts of forcible sodomy with a deadly weapon, two counts of assault in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of felonious restraint. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in: (1) overruling his motion for improper joinder and failing to sever counts; (2) failing to conduct an independent inquiry into a ven-ireperson’s bias; and (3) denying his mo[829]*829tion for judgment of acquittal on double jeopardy grounds.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only 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)

437 S.W.3d 828, 2014 WL 3731255, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-roberts-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack