State v. Watkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Watkins

275 S.W.3d 371, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 47, 2009 WL 215345

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

DocketED 90791

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 S.W.3d 371 (State v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 275 S.W.3d 371, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 47, 2009 WL 215345 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Chauncey L. Watkins, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for stealing a motor vehicle, Section 570.080, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury in a disjunctive single verdict directing instruction that it could convict Defendant of stealing a motor vehicle if the jury found he “took” or “used” the vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Chauncey L. Watkins, Jr. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for stealing a motor vehicle, Section 570.080, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced as a persistent offender to eight years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court erred in instructing the jury in a disjunctive single verdict directing instruction that it could convict Defendant of stealing a motor vehicle if the jury found he “took” or “used” the vehicle.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 S.W.3d 371, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 47, 2009 WL 215345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watkins-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack