OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Aaron Byas, Defendant/Appellant and Aaron Byas, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Aaron Byas, Defendant/·Aaron Byas, Defendant/Appellant and Aaron Byas, Movant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

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. Aaron Byas, Defendant/Appellant and Aaron Byas, Movant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 67198 and 72632 Handdown Date: 04/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Hon. Evelyn M. Baker Counsel for Appellant: Lance Eberhart Counsel for Respondent: Jill C. LaHue Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J. concur Opinion: O R D E R Aaron Byas appeals from his convictions for robbery in the first degree in violation of Section 569.020 RSMo (1986) and armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015 RSMo. He was charged as a prior offender under Section 558.016 RSMo (1986). Byas claims the prosecutor violated Rule 25.03 by failing to disclose inculpatory statements. Byas also complains the prosecutor made improper comments during closing argument. This appeal has been consolidated with Byas's Rule 29.15 motion for post conviction relief which alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. We have read the briefs and reviewed the legal file and transcript. We find no error of law and no jurisprudential purpose will be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). Separate Opinion:

None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.