State v. DARRIS

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. DARRIS

262 S.W.3d 300, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1220, 2008 WL 4133571

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2008

DocketED 90282

StatusPublished

This text of 262 S.W.3d 300 (State v. DARRIS) 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. DARRIS, 262 S.W.3d 300, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1220, 2008 WL 4133571 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Darris (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him stealing over $500, in violation of section 570.030 RSMo 2000. 1 He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment on second-degree burglary and felony stealing and consecutive terms of seven years for leaving the scene of an accident and resisting arrest and one year for driving with a suspended license, for a total of twenty five years. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The evidence in support of the jury verdict was not insufficient. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brandon Darris (Appellant) appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict convicting him stealing over $500, in violation of section 570.030 RSMo 2000. 1 He was sentenced to concurrent terms of ten years’ imprisonment on second-degree burglary and felony stealing and consecutive terms of seven years for leaving the scene of an accident and resisting arrest and one year for driving with a suspended license, for a total of twenty five years. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The evidence in support of the jury verdict was not insufficient. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 S.W.3d 300, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1220, 2008 WL 4133571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-darris-moctapp-2008.