OTT LAW

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tyrone Ford, Appellant.

Decision date: Unknown

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Tyrone Ford
Respondent
State of Missouri

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"modified","scope":null}

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.

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. Tyrone Ford, Appellant. Case Number: 71959 Handdown Date: 04/21/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Bernhardt C. Drumm Counsel for Appellant: Emmett Queener Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and J. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Opinion modified by Court's own motion on June 23, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Defendant appeals from the judgment following his conviction by a jury for burglary in the first degree in violation of section 569.160, RSMo 1994; unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 571.031.1(4), RSMo 1994; kidnapping in violation of section 565.110, RSMo 1994; forcible rape in violation of section 566.030, RSMo 1994; forcible sodomy in violation of section 568.050, RSMo 1994; and three counts of armed criminal action in violation of section 571.015, RSMo

  1. Defendant was sentenced by the court as a prior offender to a total of twenty-nine years 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.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Statutes

Rules

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.