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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darryl Taylor, 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-respondent-v-darryl-taylor-appellant-16763
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16763
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.+Darryl+Taylor%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&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: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## 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, Respondent, v. Darryl Taylor, Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 70948
Handdown Date:  06/24/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. David C. Mason
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Before Clifford H. Ahrens, C. J., William H. Crandall, Jr., J., and Charles B. Blackmar, 
Sr. J.
Opinion:

ORDER
         Defendant, Darryl Taylor, appeals from the judgment on his convictions for forcible rape, section 566.030, RSMo 
1994, and forcible sodomy, section 566.060, RSMo 1994.  He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of 30 years for 
each count.  We affirm.
          No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.  However, the parties have been furnished with a 
memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
          The judgment of the trial court 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.