State v. Woods

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Woods

303 S.W.3d 164, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 159, 2010 WL 528132

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 2010

DocketED 92342

StatusPublished

This text of 303 S.W.3d 164 (State v. Woods) 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. Woods, 303 S.W.3d 164, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 159, 2010 WL 528132 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Woods (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of stealing a motor vehicle in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2008, for which the trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to ten years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender because the State did not prove any prior offenses and the trial court did not make a finding that Defendant was a prior and persistent offender prior to submitting the case to the jury.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Woods (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of stealing a motor vehicle in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2008, for which the trial court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to ten years’ imprisonment. Defendant contends the trial court plainly erred in sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment as a prior and persistent offender because the State did not prove any prior offenses and the trial court did not make a finding that Defendant was a prior and persistent offender prior to submitting the case to the jury.

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 reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 S.W.3d 164, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 159, 2010 WL 528132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woods-moctapp-2010.