State v. Runge

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Runge

556 S.W.3d 60

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105601

StatusPublished

This text of 556 S.W.3d 60 (State v. Runge) 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. Runge, 556 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The State of Missouri appeals from the trial court's judgment sustaining Sherrie Runge's Motion to Dismiss the State's Felony Complaint, which charged Defendant *61with receiving stolen property in violation of Section 570.080, RSMo 2000¹ , based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM

The State of Missouri appeals from the trial court's judgment sustaining Sherrie Runge's Motion to Dismiss the State's Felony Complaint, which charged Defendant *61with receiving stolen property in violation of Section 570.080, RSMo 2000¹ , based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.3d 60, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-runge-moctapp-2018.