State v. Atkinson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Atkinson

295 S.W.3d 237, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1470, 2009 WL 3364409

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 20, 2009·No. ED 91923·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert Atkinson (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant took a substantial step toward the crime of enticement of a child. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only 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.

Robert Atkinson (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant took a substantial step toward the crime of enticement of a child. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was supported by sufficient evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Atkinson, 295 S.W.3d 237, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1470, 2009 WL 3364409 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

295 S.W.3d 237 (State v. Atkinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related