State v. Smallwood

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smallwood

303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 170, 2010 WL 528133

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 92313

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 303 S.W.3d 165 (State v. Smallwood) 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. Smallwood, 303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 170, 2010 WL 528133 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Larry Smallwood (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, and burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of eleven years for first-degree robbery, ten years for armed criminal action, and ten years for first-degree burglary. On appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in (1) overruling his motion to suppress the identification, and (2) overruling his motion for a mistrial when the jury saw him in handcuffs.

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.

Larry Smallwood (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, and burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of eleven years for first-degree robbery, ten years for armed criminal action, and ten years for first-degree burglary. On appeal, Defendant asserts the trial court erred in (1) overruling his motion to suppress the identification, and (2) overruling his motion for a mistrial when the jury saw him in handcuffs.

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)

303 S.W.3d 165, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 170, 2010 WL 528133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smallwood-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack