State v. Sitton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sitton

214 S.W.3d 404, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 292, 2007 WL 509427

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 2007

DocketNo. ED 87444

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 S.W.3d 404 (State v. Sitton) 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. Sitton, 214 S.W.3d 404, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 292, 2007 WL 509427 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William J. Sitton (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction entered upon the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, and no manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. State v. Norman, 178 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William J. Sitton (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction entered upon the jury’s verdict finding Appellant guilty of first-degree involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, and no manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. State v. Norman, 178 S.W.3d 556, 560 (Mo.App. W.D.2005). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 S.W.3d 404, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 292, 2007 WL 509427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sitton-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack