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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elgin Dimarco Vinson, 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-elgin-dimarco-vinson-appellant-12563
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12563
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.+Elgin+Dimarco+Vinson%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. Elgin Dimarco Vinson, Appellant.
Case Number:  70904
Handdown Date:  12/09/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. John J. Riley
Counsel for Appellant:  Rodolfo Rivera and Douglas Forsyth
Counsel for Respondent:  David Truman
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, C.J., Crandall, Jr. and Karohl, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER 
Defendant, Elgin Dimarco Vinson, appeals from the judgment of convictions, entered pursuant to jury verdicts, of 
stealing over $150.00 by means of coercion and of attempted stealing over $150.00 by coercion.  He was sentenced to 
consecutive terms of seven years' imprisonment plus $5,000.00 fine and five years' imprisonment, respectively.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.   The judgment of convictions is affirmed 
pursuant to 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.