State v. Foust

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Foust

219 S.W.3d 857, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2007 WL 1191665

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 24, 2007

DocketED 88315

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 S.W.3d 857 (State v. Foust) 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. Foust, 219 S.W.3d 857, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2007 WL 1191665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Rodney E. Foust (Foust) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County (Court), the Honorable Robert M. Clayton, II, presiding. After a bench trial, the Court convicted Foust of Assault in the Second Degree, Section 565.060.1(2) RSMo (2000), and sentenced Foust to four years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

*858 On appeal, Foust argues that the Court erred on finding Foust guilty because the State did not present sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could have found Foust guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The Judgment is affirmed 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.

Rodney E. Foust (Foust) appeals the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Marion County (Court), the Honorable Robert M. Clayton, II, presiding. After a bench trial, the Court convicted Foust of Assault in the Second Degree, Section 565.060.1(2) RSMo (2000), and sentenced Foust to four years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

*858 On appeal, Foust argues that the Court erred on finding Foust guilty because the State did not present sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could have found Foust guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and we find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The Judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 857, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 650, 2007 WL 1191665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foust-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack