State v. Coleman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Coleman

184 S.W.3d 148, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 181, 2006 WL 385109

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Coleman. Read the opinion of the Court — 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 961 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 21, 2006·No. No. WD 64580·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Coleman appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary, section 569.170, RSMo 2000, and sentence as a prior offender to seven years imprisonment. He claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a box cutter found in his jacket and (2) erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and submitting the case to the jury because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum provided to the parties, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Billy Coleman appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary, section 569.170, RSMo 2000, and sentence as a prior offender to seven years imprisonment. He claims that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in admitting into evidence a box cutter found in his jacket and (2) erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal and submitting the case to the jury because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

For the reasons set forth in the memorandum provided to the parties, the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Coleman, 184 S.W.3d 148, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 181, 2006 WL 385109 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

184 S.W.3d 148 (State v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.