State v. Young

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Young

186 S.W.3d 402, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 62, 2006 WL 92809

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Young. Read the opinion of the Court — 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 946 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 17, 2006·No. No. ED 85734·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tarron Young (“Young”) appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Larry L. Kendrick presiding, after a jury found him guilty of one count of First Degree Statutory Sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo. (2000). The trial court sentenced Young to nineteen years imprisonment. Young contends the Court erred when it (1)overruled his Motion to Suppress Statements he made to the police; (2) failed to declare a mistrial when the jury reached deadlock, and coerced a juror to change his or her verdict; and (3) overruled his request to instruct the jury that he would serve 85 percent of any sentence imposed.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Tarron Young (“Young”) appeals from the decision of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, the Honorable Larry L. Kendrick presiding, after a jury found him guilty of one count of First Degree Statutory Sodomy, Section 566.062 RSMo. (2000). The trial court sentenced Young to nineteen years imprisonment. Young contends the Court erred when it (1)overruled his Motion to Suppress Statements he made to the police; (2) failed to declare a mistrial when the jury reached deadlock, and coerced a juror to change his or her verdict; and (3) overruled his request to instruct the jury that he would serve 85 percent of any sentence imposed.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, and no error of law appears. Therefore, an opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been given a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Young, 186 S.W.3d 402, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 62, 2006 WL 92809 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

186 S.W.3d 402 (State v. Young) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.