State v. Kelley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kelley

219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2007 WL 1120289

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 2007

DocketED 87836

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 219 S.W.3d 787 (State v. Kelley) 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. Kelley, 219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2007 WL 1120289 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Kelley (“movant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of domestic assault in the second degree and armed criminal action. Movant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling movant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and in entering judgment and sentence on his conviction for armed criminal action. Movant claims the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because the State did not establish that he committed domestic assault through the use of a dangerous instrument, as defined by section 556.061(9) RSMo (2000).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Christopher Kelley (“movant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of domestic assault in the second degree and armed criminal action. Movant asserts that the trial court erred in overruling movant’s motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and in entering judgment and sentence on his conviction for armed criminal action. Movant claims the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, because the State did not establish that he committed domestic assault through the use of a dangerous instrument, as defined by section 556.061(9) RSMo (2000).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.W.3d 787, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 605, 2007 WL 1120289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelley-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack