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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Jason Houits, 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-jason-houits-defendantappellant-17549
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17549
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.+Jason+Houits%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&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: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## 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. Jason Houits, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 70507
Handdown Date:  05/27/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Iris G. Ferguson
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam.
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.
Opinion:

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and James R. Reinhard and Gary M. Gaertner, JJ.
ORDER

---

## PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of robbery in the first 
degree, sec. 569.020, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to fifteen years 
in the custody of the Department of Corrections.  We affirm.
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 the principles of law would have no 

precedential value.  The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). 
Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.