State v. Zayas-Hernandez

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Zayas-Hernandez

556 S.W.3d 678

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 25, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105910

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 678 (State v. Zayas-Hernandez) 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. Zayas-Hernandez, 556 S.W.3d 678 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Zayas-Hernandez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of third-degree domestic assault in violation of Section 565.074¹ and sentencing *679him to one year in the Medium Security Institution with credit for time served, alleging instructional error. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not err in rejecting Appellant's proposed self-defense instruction. State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo.banc 2018). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Ernesto Zayas-Hernandez (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of third-degree domestic assault in violation of Section 565.074¹ and sentencing *679him to one year in the Medium Security Institution with credit for time served, alleging instructional error. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court did not err in rejecting Appellant's proposed self-defense instruction. State v. Bruner, 541 S.W.3d 529, 534 (Mo.banc 2018). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zayas-hernandez-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack