State v. Tramble

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tramble

359 S.W.3d 542, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 203, 2012 WL 549706

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2012

DocketED 96768

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 359 S.W.3d 542 (State v. Tramble) 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. Tramble, 359 S.W.3d 542, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 203, 2012 WL 549706 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

*543 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Tramble (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a jury convicted him of one count of second-degree burglary, a felony, (Count I), one count of stealing, a misdemeanor (Count II), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, a misdemeanor (Count III). Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal and imposed judgment on Count I because there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendant entered the building with the intent to commit a crime.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The commission’s decision is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

*543 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Edward Tramble (Defendant) appeals from the judgment of the trial court entered after a jury convicted him of one count of second-degree burglary, a felony, (Count I), one count of stealing, a misdemeanor (Count II), and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, a misdemeanor (Count III). Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for acquittal and imposed judgment on Count I because there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Defendant entered the building with the intent to commit a crime.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The commission’s decision is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

359 S.W.3d 542, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 203, 2012 WL 549706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tramble-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack