State v. Morris

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Morris

397 S.W.3d 549, 2013 WL 1803475, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 510

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2013

DocketNo. ED 97953

StatusPublished

This text of 397 S.W.3d 549 (State v. Morris) 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. Morris, 397 S.W.3d 549, 2013 WL 1803475, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Morris (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted burglary in the first degree,. Section 569.160 RSMo, and one count of property damage in the second degree, Section 569.120 RSMo. Defendant contends the tri[550]*550al court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, his motion to suppress, and in omitting an element of burglary in the jury instructions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the facts in detail and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.25.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Morris (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of attempted burglary in the first degree,. Section 569.160 RSMo, and one count of property damage in the second degree, Section 569.120 RSMo. Defendant contends the tri[550]*550al court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, his motion to suppress, and in omitting an element of burglary in the jury instructions.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the facts in detail and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 S.W.3d 549, 2013 WL 1803475, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morris-moctapp-2013.