State v. Woolridge

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Woolridge

515 S.W.3d 247, 2017 WL 1228774, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 266

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103764

StatusPublished

This text of 515 S.W.3d 247 (State v. Woolridge) 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. Woolridge, 515 S.W.3d 247, 2017 WL 1228774, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Latrell Woolridge (“Woolridge”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following jury verdicts convicting him of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, armed criminal action, and six other offenses.

Woolridge raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court erred and abused its discretion in rejecting the jury’s inconsistent verdicts, which found him not guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer in Count I, but guilty of two charges of [248]*248armed criminal action in Count II, with both first-degree and second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer as the underlying felonies. Woolridge asserts the trial court should have acquitted him on both counts instead of resubmitting the case to the jury with instructions to continue deliberations to resolve the inconsistency.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Latrell Woolridge (“Woolridge”) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following jury verdicts convicting him of second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, armed criminal action, and six other offenses.

Woolridge raises one point on appeal, arguing the trial court erred and abused its discretion in rejecting the jury’s inconsistent verdicts, which found him not guilty of assault of a law enforcement officer in Count I, but guilty of two charges of [248]*248armed criminal action in Count II, with both first-degree and second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer as the underlying felonies. Woolridge asserts the trial court should have acquitted him on both counts instead of resubmitting the case to the jury with instructions to continue deliberations to resolve the inconsistency.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.3d 247, 2017 WL 1228774, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woolridge-moctapp-2017.