State v. Sherman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Sherman

180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1878, 2005 WL 3466075

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 84562

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 S.W.3d 46 (State v. Sherman) 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. Sherman, 180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1878, 2005 WL 3466075 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Sherman (“Defendant”) appeals from his conviction of robbery in the first degree. A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, 1 and the court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in entering the judgment and sentence. He claims that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the robbery for which he was convicted. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo.2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Sherman (“Defendant”) appeals from his conviction of robbery in the first degree. A jury found Defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, 1 and the court sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and in entering the judgment and sentence. He claims that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the robbery for which he was convicted. We find no error and affirm.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo.2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 46, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1878, 2005 WL 3466075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sherman-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack