State v. Swaim

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Swaim

284 S.W.3d 681, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 385, 2009 WL 764870

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 2009

DocketED 91276

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 S.W.3d 681 (State v. Swaim) 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. Swaim, 284 S.W.3d 681, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 385, 2009 WL 764870 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Swaim appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial convicting him *682 of tampering in the first degree in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo (2007). Swaim was sentenced to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. On appeal, Swaim argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, and that the trial court plainly erred in allowing the State to elicit testimony of his post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence both in its case-in-chief and on cross-examination of Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

Edward Swaim appeals the judgment entered after a bench trial convicting him *682 of tampering in the first degree in violation of Section 569.080 RSMo (2007). Swaim was sentenced to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. On appeal, Swaim argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his right to a speedy trial, and that the trial court plainly erred in allowing the State to elicit testimony of his post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence both in its case-in-chief and on cross-examination of Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 681, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 385, 2009 WL 764870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-swaim-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack