State v. Smith-Nunley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith-Nunley

474 S.W.3d 178, 2015 WL 5135174

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 1, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101632

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 474 S.W.3d 178 (State v. Smith-Nunley) 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. Smith-Nunley, 474 S.W.3d 178, 2015 WL 5135174 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willis Smith-Nunley (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of one count of murder in the second degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of robbery in the fust degree. Defendant claims that the trial court plainly erred in: (1) admitting into evidence a 911 telephone call containing testimonial statements; and (2) entering judgment and sentencing him for two counts of armed criminal action in violation of double jeop- ■ ardy principles.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appear and conclude that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Willis Smith-Nunley (Defendant) appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of one count of murder in the second degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of robbery in the fust degree. Defendant claims that the trial court plainly erred in: (1) admitting into evidence a 911 telephone call containing testimonial statements; and (2) entering judgment and sentencing him for two counts of armed criminal action in violation of double jeop- ■ ardy principles.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appear and conclude that the trial court did not err. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 178, 2015 WL 5135174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-nunley-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack