State v. Turner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Turner

245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2008 WL 123938

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 2008

DocketED 89372

StatusPublished

This text of 245 S.W.3d 884 (State v. Turner) 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. Turner, 245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2008 WL 123938 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Turner (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of three counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000), and one count of incest, Section 568.020 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each sodomy count and four years’ imprisonment for the incest conviction, to be served consecutively. Defendant raises two points on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously admitted two hearsay statements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Billy Turner (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of three counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062 RSMo (2000), and one count of incest, Section 568.020 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each sodomy count and four years’ imprisonment for the incest conviction, to be served consecutively. Defendant raises two points on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously admitted two hearsay statements.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 884, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 44, 2008 WL 123938, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-turner-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack