State v. Tillman

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tillman

179 S.W.3d 473, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2005 WL 3467231

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85553

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.W.3d 473 (State v. Tillman) 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. Tillman, 179 S.W.3d 473, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2005 WL 3467231 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keya Tillman (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon her convictions by a jury for assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000; resisting arrest, Section 575.150, RSMo 2000; and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for assault, three years’ imprisonment for resisting arrest, and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action. The assault and resisting arrest counts were to run concurrently to each other and consecutively with the armed criminal action count for a total of eighteen years’ imprisonment. In her sole point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence from which a rea *474 sonable juror could find Defendant guilty of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keya Tillman (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon her convictions by a jury for assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, RSMo 2000; resisting arrest, Section 575.150, RSMo 2000; and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for assault, three years’ imprisonment for resisting arrest, and ten years’ imprisonment for armed criminal action. The assault and resisting arrest counts were to run concurrently to each other and consecutively with the armed criminal action count for a total of eighteen years’ imprisonment. In her sole point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence from which a rea *474 sonable juror could find Defendant guilty of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.W.3d 473, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 2005 WL 3467231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tillman-moctapp-2005.