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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. William Pilger, Appellant.  William Pilger, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
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-william-pilger-appellant-william-pilger-ap-12452
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12452
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.+William+Pilger%2C+Appellant.++William+Pilger%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&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. William Pilger, Appellant.  William Pilger, Appellant, v. State of 
Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  66880 and 71525
Handdown Date:  03/03/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Dennis J. Kehm
Counsel for Appellant:  Raymond J. Capelovitch
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris, III and Daniel G. Cierpiot
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Crahan, C.J., Teitelman, J., and Blackmar, Sr.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Defendant appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree in 
violation of section 566.100 RSMo. 1994. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction 
relief.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A detailed opinion 
would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their 
information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgments are affirmed pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) 
and 84.16(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.