State v. Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Taylor

276 S.W.3d 908, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1097, 2009 WL 485999

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 17, 2009·No. ED 91164·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel C. Taylor (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030 *909 RSMo 2000, and sentencing him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Samuel C. Taylor (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030 *909 RSMo 2000, and sentencing him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

State v. Taylor, 276 S.W.3d 908, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1097, 2009 WL 485999 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

276 S.W.3d 908 (State v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related