State v. Walker

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Walker

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

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

DocketED 90417

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 S.W.3d 804, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1582, 2008 WL 4707502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-walker-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack