State v. Wright

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wright

151 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2004 WL 2158068

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 28, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82243

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 S.W.3d 836 (State v. Wright) 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. Wright, 151 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2004 WL 2158068 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[837]*837ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Wright (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury trial finding him guilty of second degree murder, a Class A felony, in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Defendant, as a prior and persistent offender pursuant to Section 558.016, to life imprisonment.

We 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 would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties 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

[837]*837ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Steven Wright (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury trial finding him guilty of second degree murder, a Class A felony, in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 1994. The trial court sentenced Defendant, as a prior and persistent offender pursuant to Section 558.016, to life imprisonment.

We 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 would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties 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)

151 S.W.3d 836, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1408, 2004 WL 2158068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wright-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack