State v. Collins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Collins

128 S.W.3d 579, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 292148

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83065

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.W.3d 579 (State v. Collins) 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. Collins, 128 S.W.3d 579, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 292148 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Collins (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to [580]*580Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Ramon Collins (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to [580]*580Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.W.3d 579, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 292148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-collins-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack