OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald F. Seward, Appellant. Donald F. Seward, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Donald F. Seward·Donald F. Seward, Appellant. Donald F. Seward, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Affirmed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

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. Donald F. Seward, Appellant. Donald F. Seward, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 68803 & 72401 Handdown Date: 02/10/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Monroe County, Hon. Carroll M. Blackwell Counsel for Appellant: Ellen H. Flottman Counsel for Respondent: Catherine Chatman Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Ahrens, P.J., Crandall and Karohl, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Defendant appealed after concurrent sentences on charges of assault first degree, armed criminal action and unlawful use of a weapon. He also appeals denial of Rule 29.15 post conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We hold the trial court did not err in submitting MAI-CR 3d 310.50 at the request of the state which instructed the jury that an intoxicated condition from alcohol will not relieve a person of responsibility for his conduct. We also hold the findings, conclusions and decision of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their use only. The judgments are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b) and Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.