State v. Steward

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Steward

190 S.W.3d 536, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 522, 2006 WL 1072074

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 25, 2006

DocketED 86228

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.3d 536 (State v. Steward) 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. Steward, 190 S.W.3d 536, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 522, 2006 WL 1072074 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Aaron Steward appeals from the judgment of the trial court sentencing him to a total of twenty years’ imprisonment entered upon his convictions of two counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Aaron Steward appeals from the judgment of the trial court sentencing him to a total of twenty years’ imprisonment entered upon his convictions of two counts of robbery in the first degree, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.3d 536, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 522, 2006 WL 1072074, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-steward-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack