State v. Williams

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Williams

499 S.W.3d 729, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 776, 2016 WL 4362118

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103256

StatusPublished

This text of 499 S.W.3d 729 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 499 S.W.3d 729, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 776, 2016 WL 4362118 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Maurice O. Williams (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of burglary in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000 ¹; and one count of stealing, in violation of Section 570.030. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twelve years’ imprisonment on the burglary count and one year imprisonment on the stealing count, which were to be served concurrently. We affirm.

[730]*730We 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

Maurice O. Williams (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for one count of burglary in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000 ¹; and one count of stealing, in violation of Section 570.030. The trial court sentenced Defendant to twelve years’ imprisonment on the burglary count and one year imprisonment on the stealing count, which were to be served concurrently. We affirm.

[730]*730We 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)

499 S.W.3d 729, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 776, 2016 WL 4362118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-moctapp-2016.