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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher Pace, 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-christopher-pace-appellant-18573
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=18573
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.+Christopher+Pace%2C+Appellant.&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)

---
## 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. Christopher Pace, Appellant.
Case Number:  53555
Handdown Date:  01/13/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. K. Preston Dean
Counsel for Appellant:  Andrew A. Schroeder
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ellis, P.J., Howard and Riederer, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Christopher Pace appeals his conviction for one count of unlawful use of a weapon - discharging a firearm into a 
dwelling.   Section 571.030.1(3) RSMo 1994.  Having carefully considered the contentions on appeal, we conclude the 
judgment should be affirmed.  A published opinion would lack precedential value.  A memorandum as to the reasons for 
our decision has been furnished to the parties.  
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.