State v. Mabry

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mabry

271 S.W.3d 31, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1583, 2008 WL 4707504

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketED 90416

StatusPublished

This text of 271 S.W.3d 31 (State v. Mabry) 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. Mabry, 271 S.W.3d 31, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1583, 2008 WL 4707504 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert B. Mabry (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of stalking and three counts of violation of an order of protection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal of stalking and of violation of an order of protection in Counts I, VI and VII, as the State presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case against Appellant on those charges (State v. Christian, 184 S.W.3d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App. E.D.2006)); (2) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the August and October 2005 letters and envelopes on the violation of an order of protection charges in counts VI and VII, as the State presented the necessary foundation for their admission (State v. Reed, 816 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Mo.App. E.D.1991)); and (3) the trial court did not err in entering a judgment of conviction against Appellant on the stalking charge because the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of stalking as set forth in Section 565.225.2 RSMo 2004.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert B. Mabry (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of stalking and three counts of violation of an order of protection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal of stalking and of violation of an order of protection in Counts I, VI and VII, as the State presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case against Appellant on those charges (State v. Christian, 184 S.W.3d 597, 601-02 (Mo.App. E.D.2006)); (2) the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence the August and October 2005 letters and envelopes on the violation of an order of protection charges in counts VI and VII, as the State presented the necessary foundation for their admission (State v. Reed, 816 S.W.2d 919, 923 (Mo.App. E.D.1991)); and (3) the trial court did not err in entering a judgment of conviction against Appellant on the stalking charge because the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of stalking as set forth in Section 565.225.2 RSMo 2004.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for them use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 S.W.3d 31, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1583, 2008 WL 4707504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mabry-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack