In the Interest of D.D.D. v. Juvenile Officer

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.D.D. v. Juvenile Officer

182 S.W.3d 265, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 162970

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 2006

DocketWD 64680

StatusPublished

This text of 182 S.W.3d 265 (In the Interest of D.D.D. v. Juvenile Officer) 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 D.D.D. v. Juvenile Officer, 182 S.W.3d 265, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 162970 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

D.D.D. appeals the judgment of disposition of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Cole County, in which he was adjudicated as having committed the class A misdemeanor of stealing, in violation of § 570.030. Pursuant to § 211.181.3, the appellant was made a ward of the court and placed in the custody of his mother, and was placed on probation and ordered to complete 20 hours of community service.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the juvenile court erred in finding him guilty of stealing, in violation of § 570.030, because the evidence was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed that offense, as alleged in the petition filed by the Juvenile Officer of Cole County.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

D.D.D. appeals the judgment of disposition of the Juvenile Division of the Circuit Court of Cole County, in which he was adjudicated as having committed the class A misdemeanor of stealing, in violation of § 570.030. Pursuant to § 211.181.3, the appellant was made a ward of the court and placed in the custody of his mother, and was placed on probation and ordered to complete 20 hours of community service.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the juvenile court erred in finding him guilty of stealing, in violation of § 570.030, because the evidence was insufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed that offense, as alleged in the petition filed by the Juvenile Officer of Cole County.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.W.3d 265, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 162970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ddd-v-juvenile-officer-moctapp-2006.