State v. Gregory

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gregory

520 S.W.3d 521, 2017 WL 2544761, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 569

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104474

StatusPublished

This text of 520 S.W.3d 521 (State v. Gregory) 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. Gregory, 520 S.W.3d 521, 2017 WL 2544761, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 569 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Martell Gregory appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on one count of assault in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.060 RSMo 2000 1 and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support conviction on either count. 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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Martell Gregory appeals from judgment upon his conviction after a jury trial on one count of assault in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.060 RSMo 2000 1 and one count of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to support conviction on either count. 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)

520 S.W.3d 521, 2017 WL 2544761, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gregory-moctapp-2017.