State v. PELSTER

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. PELSTER

179 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1809, 2005 WL 3288032

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 6, 2005

DocketED 85327

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 383 (State v. PELSTER) 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. PELSTER, 179 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1809, 2005 WL 3288032 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Pelster (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a bench trial found him guilty of domestic assault in the third degree, Section 565.074 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for 180 days, execution to be suspended, and two years’ supervised probation. Defendant’s sole point on appeal claims the trial court erred overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal in that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was an adult at the time of the occurrence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Pelster (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a bench trial found him guilty of domestic assault in the third degree, Section 565.074 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for 180 days, execution to be suspended, and two years’ supervised probation. Defendant’s sole point on appeal claims the trial court erred overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal in that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was an adult at the time of the occurrence.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1809, 2005 WL 3288032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pelster-moctapp-2005.