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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jamie Floyd Jackson, 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-jamie-floyd-jackson-defendantappe-13456
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13456
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.+Jamie+Floyd+Jackson%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=30&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: 30; 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. Jamie Floyd Jackson, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  73346
Handdown Date:  09/22/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Lewis County, Hon. Gary Dial
Counsel for Appellant:  Frederick Tucker and Douglas R. Hoff
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III and Catherine Chatman
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  R. Dowd, Jr., C.J., Karohl, J., and Crist, Sr. J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Jamie Floyd Jackson (Defendant) appeals from his judgment of conviction by a jury of one count of first-degree 
murder, Section 571.020, RSMo 1994, and one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994.  Defendant 
was sentenced to life imprisonment without probation or parole for first-degree murder with a consecutive twenty-five year 
term for armed criminal action. 
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.