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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jewell Johnson, 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-jewell-johnson-appellant-12595
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12595
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.+Jewell+Johnson%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=30&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: 30; 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 Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jewell Johnson, Appellant.
Case Number:  71200
Handdown Date:  01/13/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. David C. Mason
Counsel for Appellant:  Raymond J. Copelovitch
Counsel for Respondent:  Breck K. Burgess
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment entered pursuant to his jury conviction for first degree robbery, armed criminal 
action, and unlawful use of a weapon.   The trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of ten years for first degree 
robbery, twenty-five years for armed criminal action and five years for unlawful use of a weapon.  We have reviewed the 
briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law.  An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential 
purpose.  We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for 
our decision.  We affirm the judgment 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.