State v. Simmons

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Simmons

308 S.W.3d 273, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 443, 2010 WL 1460315

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 13, 2010

DocketED 92822

StatusPublished

This text of 308 S.W.3d 273 (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, 308 S.W.3d 273, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 443, 2010 WL 1460315 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard C. Simmons (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree murder in violation of Section 565.020 1 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal, State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo.banc 2006), or abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Appellant’s prior bad act. State v. Tolliver, 101 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2006, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard C. Simmons (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding Appellant guilty of one count of first-degree murder in violation of Section 565.020 1 and one count of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for acquittal, State v. Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo.banc 2006), or abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Appellant’s prior bad act. State v. Tolliver, 101 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2006, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 S.W.3d 273, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 443, 2010 WL 1460315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simmons-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack