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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Terrell Artis, 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-terrell-artis-appellant-12737
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12737
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.+Terrell+Artis%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&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: 26; 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. Terrell Artis, Appellant.
Case Number:  71912
Handdown Date:  10/21/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Steven H. Goldman
Counsel for Appellant:  Ellen H. Flottman
Counsel for Respondent:  Breck Burgess
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Karohl, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment entered pursuant to his jury conviction for first degree robbery.  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.