State v. Sarver

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sarver

484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 252, 2016 WL 1110450

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 2016

DocketNo. ED 102385

StatusPublished

This text of 484 S.W.3d 876 (State v. Sarver) 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. Sarver, 484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 252, 2016 WL 1110450 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

John Sarver appeals his conviction following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of one count. of first-degree robbery. In his four points on appeal, Sarver contends that the trial court erred (1) by overruling his motion to suppress evidence based on the lack of probable cause for his arrest; (2) by admitting in- and out-of-court identifications of him the reliability of which was tainted by im-permissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures; (3) by denying his motion to dismiss based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) by denying his motion to strike for cause a venireperson he alleges fell asleep during part of.voir dire. We affirm. , ■

We have concluded that an extended opinion would have no- precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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

John Sarver appeals his conviction following a jury trial in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of one count. of first-degree robbery. In his four points on appeal, Sarver contends that the trial court erred (1) by overruling his motion to suppress evidence based on the lack of probable cause for his arrest; (2) by admitting in- and out-of-court identifications of him the reliability of which was tainted by im-permissibly suggestive pretrial identification procedures; (3) by denying his motion to dismiss based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial; and (4) by denying his motion to strike for cause a venireperson he alleges fell asleep during part of.voir dire. We affirm. , ■

We have concluded that an extended opinion would have no- precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

484 S.W.3d 876, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 252, 2016 WL 1110450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sarver-moctapp-2016.