State v. Jablonski

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jablonski

332 S.W.3d 932, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2011 WL 794894

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

DocketED 94801

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 332 S.W.3d 932 (State v. Jablonski) 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. Jablonski, 332 S.W.3d 932, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2011 WL 794894 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Jablonski (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently. Appel *933 lant raises one point on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The State presented sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could have reasonably found Appellant guilty. State v. Peeples, 288 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). 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.

James Jablonski (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of two counts of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on both counts, to run concurrently. Appel *933 lant raises one point on appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. The State presented sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could have reasonably found Appellant guilty. State v. Peeples, 288 S.W.3d 767, 770 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). 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)

332 S.W.3d 932, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2011 WL 794894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jablonski-moctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack