State v. Walker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Walker

267 S.W.3d 804, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1582, 2008 WL 4707502

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 28, 2008·No. ED 90417·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Albert Levar Walker (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree burglary, Section 569.160, 1 one count of second-degree burglary, Section 569.170, two counts of felony stealing, Section 570.030, and one count of felony resisting arrest, Section 575.150. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court’s determination of probable cause to issue the search warrant of Appellant’s home was not clearly erroneous, State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo.banc 1990), and (2) the state adduced sufficient evidence to make a submissible case against Appellant of felony resisting arrest to support the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for acquittal, State v. Agnew, 214 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum 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).

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.

Albert Levar Walker (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of first-degree burglary, Section 569.160, 1 one count of second-degree burglary, Section 569.170, two counts of felony stealing, Section 570.030, and one count of felony resisting arrest, Section 575.150. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that (1) the trial court’s determination of probable cause to issue the search warrant of Appellant’s home was not clearly erroneous, State v. Milliorn, 794 S.W.2d 181, 183 (Mo.banc 1990), and (2) the state adduced sufficient evidence to make a submissible case against Appellant of felony resisting arrest to support the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for acquittal, State v. Agnew, 214 S.W.3d 398, 400 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum 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).

1

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

State v. Walker, 267 S.W.3d 804, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1582, 2008 WL 4707502 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

267 S.W.3d 804 (State v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related