State v. Allen

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Allen

193 S.W.3d 815, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 856, 2006 WL 1677175

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Allen. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1616 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 20, 2006·No. No. ED 86405·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Gathyn Allen (“Defendant”) appeals her conviction for endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Gathyn Allen (“Defendant”) appeals her conviction for endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree. Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Allen, 193 S.W.3d 815, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 856, 2006 WL 1677175 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

193 S.W.3d 815 (State v. Allen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.