State v. Strickland

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Strickland

570 S.W.3d 198

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106487

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 198 (State v. Strickland) 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. Strickland, 570 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Marqwon Strickland ("Strickland") appeals judgment entered upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action following a trial by jury in the city of St. Louis. Strickland raises two points on appeal. For Point I, Strickland argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal upon sufficiency of the evidence because the only eyewitness identifying him was biased. For Point II, Strickland argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion allowing convictions for both armed criminal action and unlawful use of weapon, misapplying Missouri's statutory provisions codifying double jeopardy.

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

Finding no clear error, 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

PER CURIAM

Marqwon Strickland ("Strickland") appeals judgment entered upon his conviction of assault in the first degree, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action following a trial by jury in the city of St. Louis. Strickland raises two points on appeal. For Point I, Strickland argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal upon sufficiency of the evidence because the only eyewitness identifying him was biased. For Point II, Strickland argues the trial court erred and abused its discretion allowing convictions for both armed criminal action and unlawful use of weapon, misapplying Missouri's statutory provisions codifying double jeopardy.

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

Finding no clear error, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strickland-moctapp-2019.