State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

34 S.W.3d 859, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 7, 2001 WL 2158

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided January 2, 2001·No. No. ED 77018·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shannon Smith (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree assault, class B felony, Section 565.050 RSMo (1994),¹ and for felonious restraint, Section 565.120, for which Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of seven years. Defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because the State did not present sufficient evidence to support either conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude there is [860] sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Footnotes

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shannon Smith (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction for first-degree assault, class B felony, Section 565.050 RSMo (1994),¹ and for felonious restraint, Section 565.120, for which Defendant was sentenced to two concurrent terms of seven years. Defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal because the State did not present sufficient evidence to support either conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude there is [860] sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Footnotes

State v. Smith, 34 S.W.3d 859, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 7, 2001 WL 2158 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

34 S.W.3d 859 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Footnotes

Related