State v. Mrozak

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mrozak

497 S.W.3d 818, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 658, 2016 WL 3538557

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 2016

DocketWD 78371

StatusPublished

This text of 497 S.W.3d 818 (State v. Mrozak) 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. Mrozak, 497 S.W.3d 818, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 658, 2016 WL 3538557 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

David Mrozak appeals his conviction following a jury trial for attempted entiee[819]*819ment of a child and sentence of ten years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove lack of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

David Mrozak appeals his conviction following a jury trial for attempted entiee[819]*819ment of a child and sentence of ten years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the State failed to prove lack of entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 S.W.3d 818, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 658, 2016 WL 3538557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mrozak-moctapp-2016.