Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Donald Seddens, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-donald-seddens-defendant-appella-16623
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16623
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent+v.+Donald+Seddens%2C+Defendant-Appellant&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Donald Seddens, Defendant-Appellant
Case Number:  No. 70848
Handdown Date:  05/13/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Steven H. Goldman
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED. Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and James R. Reinhard and Gary M. Gaertner, JJ.
Opinion:

ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by the court of one count of forcible rape, Section 
566.030, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to five years in the custody of the department of corrections. 
We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be 
without merit.   An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no 
precedential value.  The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). 
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.