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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony Payne, 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-plaintiffrespondent-v-anthony-payne-defendantappellant-12629
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12629
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%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Anthony+Payne%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&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: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: criminal)

---
## 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. Anthony Payne, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  71821
Handdown Date:  06/09/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Brendan Ryan
Counsel for Appellant:  Richard Sindel and Jerilyn Lipe
Counsel for Respondent:  John Morris, III, and Cheryl Caponegro
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Anthony Payne, Defendant, appeals from judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him of murder in the first 
degree in violation of Section 565.020.1, RSMo 1990, and armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, RSMo 
1994.  The trial court sentenced him to concurrent life sentences without probation or parole.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without 
merit.  An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value.  The parties 
have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.  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.