State v. Robinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Robinson

155 S.W.3d 793, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2005 WL 147415

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 2005

DocketNo. ED 82630

StatusPublished

This text of 155 S.W.3d 793 (State v. Robinson) 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. Robinson, 155 S.W.3d 793, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2005 WL 147415 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robinson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of one count of forcible rape (“Count 1”), one count of burglary in the first degree (“Count III”), and one count of stealing under $750.00 (“Count V”). The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on Count I, fifteen years on Count III, and one year on Count V, with Count III and Count V to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutive to Count I.

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.

Robinson (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of one count of forcible rape (“Count 1”), one count of burglary in the first degree (“Count III”), and one count of stealing under $750.00 (“Count V”). The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on Count I, fifteen years on Count III, and one year on Count V, with Count III and Count V to be served concurrently to each other, but consecutive to Count I.

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)

155 S.W.3d 793, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 116, 2005 WL 147415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robinson-moctapp-2005.