State v. Gulley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gulley

472 S.W.3d 643, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2015 WL 6152792

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

DocketWD 77505

StatusPublished

This text of 472 S.W.3d 643 (State v. Gulley) 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. Gulley, 472 S.W.3d 643, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2015 WL 6152792 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Gulley appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County convicting him of one count of Class C felony stealing, § 570.030, and sentencing him to a term of seven years imprisonment. Specifically, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the value of the items he stole and asserts that the value of those items was a required element of the crime for which he was convicted. Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rüie 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Gulley appeals from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County convicting him of one count of Class C felony stealing, § 570.030, and sentencing him to a term of seven years imprisonment. Specifically, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the value of the items he stole and asserts that the value of those items was a required element of the crime for which he was convicted. Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment of conviction. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rüie 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 S.W.3d 643, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2015 WL 6152792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gulley-moctapp-2015.