State v. Wilkinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wilkinson

531 S.W.3d 626

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103997

StatusPublished

This text of 531 S.W.3d 626 (State v. Wilkinson) 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. Wilkinson, 531 S.W.3d 626 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[627]*627ORDER

PER CURIAM

Benjamin Wilkinson (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of Section 565.024 (RSMo. 2000), and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Appellant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter and ten years’ imprisonment for armed. criminal action, to be served consecutively for a total sentence of 17 years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for.their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[627]*627ORDER

PER CURIAM

Benjamin Wilkinson (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of involuntary manslaughter in the first degree, in violation of Section 565.024 (RSMo. 2000), and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Appellant was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for involuntary manslaughter and ten years’ imprisonment for armed. criminal action, to be served consecutively for a total sentence of 17 years.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for.their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 S.W.3d 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilkinson-moctapp-2017.