State v. Shields

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Shields

29 S.W.3d 407, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2000 WL 1576945

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 2000

DocketNo. ED 77096

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 S.W.3d 407 (State v. Shields) 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. Shields, 29 S.W.3d 407, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2000 WL 1576945 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Shields (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of statutory rape in the first degree, Section 566.032, RSMo 1994; statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062, RSMo 1994; and child molestation in the first degree, Section 566.067, RSMo 1994, for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, life imprisonment, and seven years’ imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

James Shields (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of statutory rape in the first degree, Section 566.032, RSMo 1994; statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062, RSMo 1994; and child molestation in the first degree, Section 566.067, RSMo 1994, for which Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, life imprisonment, and seven years’ imprisonment, respectively, with the sentences to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 S.W.3d 407, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1565, 2000 WL 1576945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shields-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack