State v. Sutton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sutton

302 S.W.3d 743, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2010 WL 289111

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

DocketNo. ED 92297

StatusPublished

This text of 302 S.W.3d 743 (State v. Sutton) 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. Sutton, 302 S.W.3d 743, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2010 WL 289111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Cornelius A. Sutton, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of section 565.024 RSMo (2000); robbery in the first degree, in violation of section 569.020 RSMo (2000); and burglary in the first degree, in violation"’ of "section’ 569.160 RSMo (2000). The trial court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment on the involuntary manslaughter count; life imprisonment on the robbery count; and thirty years imprisonment on the burglary count, to be served consecutively.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 80.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Cornelius A. Sutton, appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of section 565.024 RSMo (2000); robbery in the first degree, in violation of section 569.020 RSMo (2000); and burglary in the first degree, in violation"’ of "section’ 569.160 RSMo (2000). The trial court found defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment on the involuntary manslaughter count; life imprisonment on the robbery count; and thirty years imprisonment on the burglary count, to be served consecutively.

No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 80.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 S.W.3d 743, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 61, 2010 WL 289111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sutton-moctapp-2010.