State v. Martin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Martin

553 S.W.3d 900

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Martin. Read the opinion of the Court — 575 S.W.3d 764 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 14, 2018·No. No. ED 105709·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Steven Martin appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial for burglary in the second degree. The evidence was sufficient and there was no other prejudicial error at trial. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Steven Martin appeals from the judgment entered on his conviction after a jury trial for burglary in the second degree. The evidence was sufficient and there was no other prejudicial error at trial. We affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Martin, 553 S.W.3d 900 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

553 S.W.3d 900 (State v. Martin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.