State v. Ware

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ware

505 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2016 WL 7321747

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 13, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103421

StatusPublished

This text of 505 S.W.3d 449 (State v. Ware) 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. Ware, 505 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2016 WL 7321747 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Stanley Ware (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction following a jury trial for one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ for which the trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years imprisonment. We affirm.

[450]*450We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

Stanley Ware (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction following a jury trial for one count of robbery in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.020, RSMo 2000,¹ for which the trial court sentenced Defendant to ten years imprisonment. We affirm.

[450]*450We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.3d 449, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1265, 2016 WL 7321747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ware-moctapp-2016.