State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Raymond Young, Defendant/Appellant; Raymond Young, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant: Raymond Young, Defendant/·Raymond Young, Defendant/Appellant; Raymond Young, Defendant/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.

View Original on courts.mo.gov

Syllabus

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. Raymond Young, Defendant/Appellant; Raymond Young, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 67797 and 70285 Handdown Date: 05/20/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis City Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam. Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Opinion:

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Before: Mary Rhodes Russell, P.J., Paul J. Simon, J. and Kent E. Karohl, J. Defendant appeals from his jury conviction of three counts of rape in violation of section 566.030 RSMo 1994, three counts of sodomy in violation of section 566.060 RSMo 1994, one count of sexual assault in violation of section 566.040 RSMo 1994, and one count of child abuse, in violation of section 569.060 RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

An extended opinion would serve no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). Separate Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.