City of St. Louis v. Burnett

Missouri Court of Appeals

City of St. Louis v. Burnett

477 S.W.3d 175, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2015 WL 7566505

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 24, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102447

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 175 (City of St. Louis v. Burnett) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City of St. Louis v. Burnett, 477 S.W.3d 175, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2015 WL 7566505 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, Tyris Burnett (Appellant) appeals’from the judgment of :the circuit court finding Appellant guilty 'of interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest, in violation of Section 15.10.010 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file; and the record on appeal-and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. [176]*176An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

In this consolidated appeal, Tyris Burnett (Appellant) appeals’from the judgment of :the circuit court finding Appellant guilty 'of interfering with a police officer and resisting arrest, in violation of Section 15.10.010 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file; and the record on appeal-and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. [176]*176An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential or precedential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 175, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1223, 2015 WL 7566505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-st-louis-v-burnett-moctapp-2015.