State v. Lovings

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Lovings

209 S.W.3d 33, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1863, 2006 WL 3592951

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 12, 2006·No. No. ED 86459·Published

Opinion

ORDER

The defendant, Curtis Lovings, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury for unlawful use of a weapon, [34] Section 571.030.1(4) RSMo.2000. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find the evidence sufficient, and, therefore, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

The defendant, Curtis Lovings, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction by a jury for unlawful use of a weapon, [34] Section 571.030.1(4) RSMo.2000. The defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. We find the evidence sufficient, and, therefore, the trial court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Lovings, 209 S.W.3d 33, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1863, 2006 WL 3592951 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

209 S.W.3d 33 (State v. Lovings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.