State v. Varvil

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Varvil

575 S.W.3d 246

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 S.W.3d 246 (State v. Varvil) 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. Varvil, 575 S.W.3d 246 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Following a jury trial, Jonathon Varvil ("Defendant") was convicted of five counts of statutory sodomy and one count of child molestation. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 140 years in Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC"), five 25 year terms for the statutory sodomy counts and one 15 year term for the child molestation count, all terms to run consecutively. Defendant raises six points on appeal. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the record on appeal, and the oral argument before this court. Under our standards of review, we conclude the trial court did not err. We deny Defendant's six points on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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

PER CURIAM

Following a jury trial, Jonathon Varvil ("Defendant") was convicted of five counts of statutory sodomy and one count of child molestation. Defendant was sentenced to a total of 140 years in Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC"), five 25 year terms for the statutory sodomy counts and one 15 year term for the child molestation count, all terms to run consecutively. Defendant raises six points on appeal. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the record on appeal, and the oral argument before this court. Under our standards of review, we conclude the trial court did not err. We deny Defendant's six points on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 S.W.3d 246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-varvil-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack