OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Darryl Davis, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Darryl Davis, Defendant/
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. Darryl Davis, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 70584 Handdown Date: 12/02/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Bernhardt C. Drumm, Jr. Counsel for Appellant: Ramona L. Marten and N. Scott Rosenblum Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Darryl Davis, Defendant, appeals from his conviction by a jury of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a prior and persistent offender to terms of imprisonment of thirty years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. After having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, we find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.