State v. Burton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Burton

340 S.W.3d 603, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2011 WL 1531524

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 12, 2011

DocketED 94929

StatusPublished

This text of 340 S.W.3d 603 (State v. Burton) 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. Burton, 340 S.W.3d 603, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2011 WL 1531524 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roy Lee Burton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for violation of an order of protection, Section 455.085, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to one year in a medium security institution. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for violation of an order of protection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Roy Lee Burton (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for violation of an order of protection, Section 455.085, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to one year in a medium security institution. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction for violation of an order of protection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 80.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.W.3d 603, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 511, 2011 WL 1531524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-burton-moctapp-2011.