State v. Travis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Travis

247 S.W.3d 566, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1454, 2007 WL 3071577

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

DocketED 88724

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.W.3d 566 (State v. Travis) 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. Travis, 247 S.W.3d 566, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1454, 2007 WL 3071577 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Richard Travis (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020 RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo 2000. Travis was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent thirty-year terms.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No *567 error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Richard Travis (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020 RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo 2000. Travis was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent thirty-year terms.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No *567 error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 566, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1454, 2007 WL 3071577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-travis-moctapp-2007.