State v. Hale

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hale

128 S.W.3d 624, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 237, 2004 WL 335513

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2004

DocketNo. ED 83047

StatusPublished

This text of 128 S.W.3d 624 (State v. Hale) 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. Hale, 128 S.W.3d 624, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 237, 2004 WL 335513 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Hale (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of felony criminal nonsupport in violation of Section 568.040 RSMo (2002). Father was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Father argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him in that he claims the State failed to meet its burden of proof as to whether Father provided “adequate support.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment. State v. Degraffenreid, 877 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Mo.App. S.D.1994). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

John Hale (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of felony criminal nonsupport in violation of Section 568.040 RSMo (2002). Father was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Father argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him in that he claims the State failed to meet its burden of proof as to whether Father provided “adequate support.”

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find there was sufficient evidence to support the judgment. State v. Degraffenreid, 877 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Mo.App. S.D.1994). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 S.W.3d 624, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 237, 2004 WL 335513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hale-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack