State v. Thomas

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Thomas

192 S.W.3d 500, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 677, 2006 WL 1319977

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86456

StatusPublished

This text of 192 S.W.3d 500 (State v. Thomas) 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. Thomas, 192 S.W.3d 500, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 677, 2006 WL 1319977 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tamond Thomas (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of two counts of first degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. Defendant claims the trial court erred in restricting his cross-examination of two witnesses, and the court erred in allowing testimony regarding prior uncharged crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tamond Thomas (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of two counts of first degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. Defendant claims the trial court erred in restricting his cross-examination of two witnesses, and the court erred in allowing testimony regarding prior uncharged crimes.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.W.3d 500, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 677, 2006 WL 1319977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-moctapp-2006.