State v. Kyles

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kyles

380 S.W.3d 649, 2012 WL 4499322, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1226

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 2, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97601

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 380 S.W.3d 649 (State v. Kyles) 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. Kyles, 380 S.W.3d 649, 2012 WL 4499322, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1226 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Kyles (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of his conviction by a jury of tampering with a motor vehicle in the first degree, a class C felony, Section 569.080 RSMo. (Cum.Supp.2005)¹, resisting arrest or interfering with arrest, a class D felony, Section 575.150 RSMo. (Cum.Supp.2009), and assault on a law enforcement officer in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor, Section 565.083. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for felony resisting arrest.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the [650]*650evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for felony resisting arrest. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) Mo.R.Crim. P. (2012).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Kyles (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment of his conviction by a jury of tampering with a motor vehicle in the first degree, a class C felony, Section 569.080 RSMo. (Cum.Supp.2005)¹, resisting arrest or interfering with arrest, a class D felony, Section 575.150 RSMo. (Cum.Supp.2009), and assault on a law enforcement officer in the third degree, a class A misdemeanor, Section 565.083. On appeal, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for felony resisting arrest.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the [650]*650evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for felony resisting arrest. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b) Mo.R.Crim. P. (2012).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 S.W.3d 649, 2012 WL 4499322, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kyles-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack