State v. Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Taylor

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

DocketED 91164

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.W.3d 908, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1097, 2009 WL 485999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-taylor-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack