State v. Simmons

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Simmons

249 S.W.3d 897, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 505, 2008 WL 1716651

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 15, 2008

DocketWD 67645

StatusPublished

This text of 249 S.W.3d 897 (State v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 249 S.W.3d 897, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 505, 2008 WL 1716651 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal by Defendant Rick Simmons from his September 2006 conviction for domestic assault in the second degree. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Defendant raises two points. First, he asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Second, he contests jury instruction number five on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. After reviewing the record, the court is convinced that both points are without merit. As an extended opinion would hold no *898 value as precedent, a memorandum has been provided for the benefit of the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal by Defendant Rick Simmons from his September 2006 conviction for domestic assault in the second degree. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to four years imprisonment. Defendant raises two points. First, he asserts that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Second, he contests jury instruction number five on the ground that it was not supported by sufficient evidence. After reviewing the record, the court is convinced that both points are without merit. As an extended opinion would hold no *898 value as precedent, a memorandum has been provided for the benefit of the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 S.W.3d 897, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 505, 2008 WL 1716651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simmons-moctapp-2008.