In the Interest of C.Y.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of C.Y.

477 S.W.3d 708, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2015 WL 8870024

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102626

StatusPublished

This text of 477 S.W.3d 708 (In the Interest of C.Y.) 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

In the Interest of C.Y., 477 S.W.3d 708, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2015 WL 8870024 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C.Y. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his convictions for first-degree tampering, Section 569.080, RSMo 2000,¹ and resisting a lawful stop, Section 575.150. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and in finding that he committed what would be [709]*709resisting a lawful stop if he was an adult because there was no substantial evidence to support that charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C.Y. (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court upon his convictions for first-degree tampering, Section 569.080, RSMo 2000,¹ and resisting a lawful stop, Section 575.150. Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and in finding that he committed what would be [709]*709resisting a lawful stop if he was an adult because there was no substantial evidence to support that charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not err. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

477 S.W.3d 708, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1296, 2015 WL 8870024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cy-moctapp-2015.