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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ross Miskell, Defendant/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-ross-miskell-defendantappellant-12465
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12465
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.+Ross+Miskell%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&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. Ross Miskell, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  69910
Handdown Date:  01/27/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Evelyn M. Baker
Counsel for Appellant:  Deborah B. Wafer
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III, and Daniel G. Cierpiot
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 from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of five counts of sodomy in 
violation of Section 566.060 RSMo 1994.  He was sentenced to five consecutive terms of life imprisonment.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the 
principles of law.  However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting 
forth the facts and reasons for this order.
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.