State v. James

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. James

260 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2008 WL 3843539

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90045

StatusPublished

This text of 260 S.W.3d 434 (State v. James) 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. James, 260 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2008 WL 3843539 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry James (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, one count of burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal as to burglary in the first degree because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry James (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000, one count of burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160, RSMo 2000, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal as to burglary in the first degree because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 434, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1074, 2008 WL 3843539, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-james-moctapp-2008.