State v. Hawkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hawkins

351 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2011 WL 5064304

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2011

DocketED 94895

StatusPublished

This text of 351 S.W.3d 246 (State v. Hawkins) 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. Hawkins, 351 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2011 WL 5064304 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

John Hawkins (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year imprisonment with credit for time served. Defendant raises two allegations of error claiming the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the identification of him by two officers and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the State failed to prove its case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, 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.

John Hawkins (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of property damage in the first degree, Section 569.100 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year imprisonment with credit for time served. Defendant raises two allegations of error claiming the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the identification of him by two officers and his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the State failed to prove its case.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, for the use of the parties only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 S.W.3d 246, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1420, 2011 WL 5064304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hawkins-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack