State v. Webb

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Webb

164 S.W.3d 107, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 749, 2005 WL 1155855

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 17, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84059

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 S.W.3d 107 (State v. Webb) 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. Webb, 164 S.W.3d 107, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 749, 2005 WL 1155855 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Kenneth Webb, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for one count of the class A felony of first-degree assault and one count of the class B felony of first-degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo.2000,¹ two counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015, one count of the class A felony of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030, and one count of leaving the scene of a shooting, section 57'7.068.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law [108]*108would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information 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.

The defendant, Kenneth Webb, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for one count of the class A felony of first-degree assault and one count of the class B felony of first-degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo.2000,¹ two counts of armed criminal action, section 571.015, one count of the class A felony of unlawful use of a weapon, section 571.030, and one count of leaving the scene of a shooting, section 57'7.068.

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law [108]*108would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information 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)

164 S.W.3d 107, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 749, 2005 WL 1155855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-webb-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack