State v. French

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. French

573 S.W.3d 764

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106414

StatusPublished

This text of 573 S.W.3d 764 (State v. French) 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. French, 573 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*765Richard E. French ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting him of burglary in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000.¹ Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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

PER CURIAM

*765Richard E. French ("Defendant") appeals from the trial court's judgment convicting him of burglary in the first degree, in violation of Section 569.160, RSMo 2000.¹ Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 S.W.3d 764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-french-moctapp-2019.