State v. Helderle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Helderle

451 S.W.3d 360, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2014 WL 7403888

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 2014·No. No. ED 100273·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James M. Helderle (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first-degree burglary, forcible sodomy, felonious restraint, and armed criminal action. Defendant claims the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his burglary conviction. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

James M. Helderle (Defendant) appeals the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury convicted him of first-degree burglary, forcible sodomy, felonious restraint, and armed criminal action. Defendant claims the trial court erred by admitting evidence of uncharged misconduct. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his burglary conviction. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and have determined that an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Helderle, 451 S.W.3d 360, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1487, 2014 WL 7403888 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

451 S.W.3d 360 (State v. Helderle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related