State v. Hatten

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hatten

284 S.W.3d 773, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 799, 2009 WL 1586008

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 2009

DocketWD 69371

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 S.W.3d 773 (State v. Hatten) 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. Hatten, 284 S.W.3d 773, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 799, 2009 WL 1586008 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*774 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark Hatten appeals his conviction for armed criminal action, § 571.015. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted with the required intent for armed criminal action. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

*774 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Mark Hatten appeals his conviction for armed criminal action, § 571.015. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he acted with the required intent for armed criminal action. After a thorough review of the record, we find that the conviction is supported by substantial evidence. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal written opinion; however, a memorandum explaining our reasoning has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 773, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 799, 2009 WL 1586008, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hatten-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack