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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Antonio Kelly, 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-antonio-kelly-defendantappellant-13299
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13299
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.+Antonio+Kelly%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&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: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Syllabus

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. Antonio Kelly, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  73257
Handdown Date:  09/29/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Hon. Timothy J. Wilson
Counsel for Appellant:  S. Paige Canfield
Counsel for Respondent:  Gregory L. Barnes
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Simon, P.J., Crane and Mooney, JJ. concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of murder in the second degree, 
in violation of Section 565.021.1(2) RSMo (1994), and one count of endangering the welfare of a child, in violation of 
Section 568.045 RSMo (1994), on which he was sentenced to a seventeen year term of imprisonment and a concurrent 
five year term of imprisonment.
No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.   However, the 
parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for 
this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

---

## PER CURIAM.

Separate Opinion:

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