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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Anderson, 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-james-anderson-appellant-13370
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13370
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.+James+Anderson%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: sentence)

---
## 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. James Anderson, Appellant.
Case Number:  73142
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Mark D. Seigel
Counsel for Appellant:  N. Scott Rosenblum
Counsel for Respondent:  Joanne E. Joiner
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  J. Dowd, P.J., Crahan and Teitelman, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction by a jury of one count of forcible 
sodomy in violation of section 566.060 RSMo 1994 and of one count of attempted forcible rape in violation of section 
566.030.2 RSMo 1994.  Defendant was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on each count, to be served consecutively. 
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion would 
serve no jurisprudential purpose.  The judgment is affirmed in accordance with 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.