State v. Burt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Burt

260 S.W.3d 430, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1075, 2008 WL 3842982

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 89701

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 430 (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, 260 S.W.3d 430, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1075, 2008 WL 3842982 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Y. Burt (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced to ninety days in jail; however, the trial court suspended the execution of that sentence, and placed Defendant on probation for two years. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously entered its judgment of conviction because there was insufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, 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.

Jeffrey Y. Burt (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010 RSMo (2000). Defendant was sentenced to ninety days in jail; however, the trial court suspended the execution of that sentence, and placed Defendant on probation for two years. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously entered its judgment of conviction because there was insufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 430, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1075, 2008 WL 3842982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burt-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack