State v. Kirk

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kirk

130 S.W.3d 740, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 441, 2004 WL 612895

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 30, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82870

StatusPublished

This text of 130 S.W.3d 740 (State v. Kirk) 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. Kirk, 130 S.W.3d 740, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 441, 2004 WL 612895 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Brian L. Kirk (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of one count of misdemeanor stealing, a lesser-included offense of felony stealing, in violation of Section 570.030.¹ The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year in the Franklin County Jail and fined him $1000, but the trial court suspended the execution of the sentence and placed Defendant on two years of probation.² This appeal follows. We affirm.

[741]*741We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm 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.

Brian L. Kirk (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of one count of misdemeanor stealing, a lesser-included offense of felony stealing, in violation of Section 570.030.¹ The trial court sentenced Defendant to one year in the Franklin County Jail and fined him $1000, but the trial court suspended the execution of the sentence and placed Defendant on two years of probation.² This appeal follows. We affirm.

[741]*741We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 S.W.3d 740, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 441, 2004 WL 612895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kirk-moctapp-2004.