State v. Holtzman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Holtzman

869 S.W.2d 923, 1994 WL 35869

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 8, 1994·No. No. 62079·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of one count of passing a bad check, § 570.120, RSMo 1986. The jury verdict assessed a fine, the amount to be determined by the court. The court fined defendant $7,881.94 plus court costs. It stayed execution of the fine for thirty days. If defendant made full restitution within that period, the fine would be reduced to $3,915.97. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Defendant appeals his conviction, by a jury, of one count of passing a bad check, § 570.120, RSMo 1986. The jury verdict assessed a fine, the amount to be determined by the court. The court fined defendant $7,881.94 plus court costs. It stayed execution of the fine for thirty days. If defendant made full restitution within that period, the fine would be reduced to $3,915.97. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).

State v. Holtzman, 869 S.W.2d 923, 1994 WL 35869 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

869 S.W.2d 923 (State v. Holtzman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.