State v. Tobias

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tobias

299 S.W.3d 31, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1608, 2009 WL 3834003

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

DocketED 91987

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 S.W.3d 31 (State v. Tobias) 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. Tobias, 299 S.W.3d 31, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1608, 2009 WL 3834003 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Patrick Tobias, appeals his conviction after a jury trial for murder in the first degree pursuant to section 569.140 RSMo (2000) 1 and for armed criminal action pursuant to section 571.015. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole. He raises two points on appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial and overruling his objections during the State’s closing argument.

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, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000), unless otherwise noted.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Patrick Tobias, appeals his conviction after a jury trial for murder in the first degree pursuant to section 569.140 RSMo (2000) 1 and for armed criminal action pursuant to section 571.015. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison without parole. He raises two points on appeal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new trial and overruling his objections during the State’s closing argument.

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, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2000), unless otherwise noted.

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 S.W.3d 31, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1608, 2009 WL 3834003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tobias-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack