State v. Dantzson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dantzson

226 S.W.3d 174, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 834, 2007 WL 1598165

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 2007

DocketED 87906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 S.W.3d 174 (State v. Dantzson) 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. Dantzson, 226 S.W.3d 174, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 834, 2007 WL 1598165 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Dantzson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no instructional error. State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Mo.banc 2005). We also find there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Christian, 184 S.W.3d 597, 602 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our deci *175 sion to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri 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.

Edward Dantzson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no instructional error. State v. Belton, 153 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Mo.banc 2005). We also find there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Christian, 184 S.W.3d 597, 602 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our deci *175 sion to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 S.W.3d 174, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 834, 2007 WL 1598165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dantzson-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack