State v. White

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. White

541 S.W.3d 717

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 20, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105200

StatusPublished

This text of 541 S.W.3d 717 (State v. White) 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. White, 541 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*718Julius White ("White") appeals from the trial court's judgment, entered after a jury found him guilty of second-degree robbery. On appeal, White argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because the State offered evidence that White stole money from Victim and bit Victim to accomplish the theft, the jury heard sufficient evidence to support White's second-degree-robbery conviction.

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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM

*718Julius White ("White") appeals from the trial court's judgment, entered after a jury found him guilty of second-degree robbery. On appeal, White argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Because the State offered evidence that White stole money from Victim and bit Victim to accomplish the theft, the jury heard sufficient evidence to support White's second-degree-robbery conviction.

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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.3d 717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-white-moctapp-2018.