State v. Burt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Burt

239 S.W.3d 712, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1659, 2007 WL 4234641

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

DocketED 88466

StatusPublished

This text of 239 S.W.3d 712 (State v. Burt) 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

State v. Burt, 239 S.W.3d 712, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1659, 2007 WL 4234641 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*713 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Burt (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted stealing from a person, in violation of Section 564.011 1 , and one count of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030. After finding Defendant was a prior offender, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four years on each count.

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. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All subsequent statutory citations are to RSMo 2.000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

*713 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Eric Burt (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of attempted stealing from a person, in violation of Section 564.011 1 , and one count of unlawful use of a weapon, in violation of Section 571.030. After finding Defendant was a prior offender, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of four years on each count.

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. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this ease would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All subsequent statutory citations are to RSMo 2.000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 S.W.3d 712, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1659, 2007 WL 4234641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burt-moctapp-2007.