State v. Ellis

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ellis

191 S.W.3d 687, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2006 WL 1319702

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2006

DocketNo. ED 86441

StatusPublished

This text of 191 S.W.3d 687 (State v. Ellis) 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. Ellis, 191 S.W.3d 687, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2006 WL 1319702 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

After a bench trial, the court convicted Anthony Ellis (Defendant) of misdemeanor stealing under $500, in violation of section 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.2002, for stealing a coat from Marshall’s store. The trial court sentenced him to one year in the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services. Defendant appeals his conviction, contending there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Having reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. State v. Harris, 774 S.W.2d 487, 491 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

After a bench trial, the court convicted Anthony Ellis (Defendant) of misdemeanor stealing under $500, in violation of section 570.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.2002, for stealing a coat from Marshall’s store. The trial court sentenced him to one year in the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services. Defendant appeals his conviction, contending there is insufficient evidence to support it.

Having reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs, we conclude there is sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction. State v. Harris, 774 S.W.2d 487, 491 (Mo.App. E.D.1989). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.W.3d 687, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 675, 2006 WL 1319702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ellis-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack