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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur Jackson, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-arthur-jackson-appellant-17781
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17781
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+Respondent%2C+v.+Arthur+Jackson%2C+Appellant.&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: 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 Western District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arthur Jackson, Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 52673
Handdown Date:  07/22/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jack E. Gant, Judge
Counsel for Appellant:  Gary E. Brotherton
Counsel for Respondent:  Cheryl A. Caponegro, Assistant Attorney General
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ellis, P.J., Lowenstein and Howard, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
O R D E R
Arthur Jackson appeals from his conviction by jury of robbery in the second degree, Section 569.030, RSMo 
1994; robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 1994; and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 1994. 
Jackson was sentenced as a prior, persistent, and class X offender to concurrent terms of fifteen, twenty, and five years 
imprisonment on the respective counts.
Judgment affirmed.  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.