State v. Jung

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jung

236 S.W.3d 123, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1460, 2007 WL 3071579

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 2007

DocketED 88645

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 S.W.3d 123 (State v. Jung) 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. Jung, 236 S.W.3d 123, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1460, 2007 WL 3071579 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Jung (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of second-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.170 RSMo 2000. Jung was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent fifteen-year terms.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of eiTor to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming 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.

Joseph Jung (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of second-degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.170 RSMo 2000. Jung was sentenced as a persistent offender to concurrent fifteen-year terms.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of eiTor to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.W.3d 123, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1460, 2007 WL 3071579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jung-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack