State v. Dominguez

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dominguez

229 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 742, 2007 WL 1412534

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 15, 2007

DocketED 88161

StatusPublished

This text of 229 S.W.3d 168 (State v. Dominguez) 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. Dominguez, 229 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 742, 2007 WL 1412534 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Javier Dominguez (“movant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree. Movant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling movant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact would conclude movant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Javier Dominguez (“movant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of attempted statutory sodomy in the first degree. Movant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling movant’s motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact would conclude movant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.W.3d 168, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 742, 2007 WL 1412534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dominguez-moctapp-2007.