State v. Scott

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Scott

938 S.W.2d 297, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 122, 1997 WL 29170

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 1997

DocketNo. 70446

StatusPublished

This text of 938 S.W.2d 297 (State v. Scott) 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. Scott, 938 S.W.2d 297, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 122, 1997 WL 29170 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030, RSMo 1994, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of nine years for unlawful use of a weapon to run consecutively to a term of one year in the custody of the Department of Justice Services for resisting arrest. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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.

Defendant appeals after his conviction by a jury of one count of unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030, RSMo 1994, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to a prison term of nine years for unlawful use of a weapon to run consecutively to a term of one year in the custody of the Department of Justice Services for resisting arrest. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. 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)

938 S.W.2d 297, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 122, 1997 WL 29170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scott-moctapp-1997.