State v. DEHART

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. DEHART

157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 2005 WL 589608

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 15, 2005

DocketED 83616

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 761 (State v. DEHART) 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. DEHART, 157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 2005 WL 589608 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Dehart (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of robbery in the first degree. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred when it overruled his trial attorney’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all evidence because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of the first-degree robbery of a Church’s Chicken and a Shell Oil gas station.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Dehart (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of robbery in the first degree. In his appeal, Defendant alleges that the trial court erred when it overruled his trial attorney’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all evidence because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was guilty of the first-degree robbery of a Church’s Chicken and a Shell Oil gas station.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 761, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 2005 WL 589608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dehart-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack