State v. Wilson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wilson

510 S.W.3d 899, 2017 WL 676731

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104064

StatusPublished

This text of 510 S.W.3d 899 (State v. Wilson) 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. Wilson, 510 S.W.3d 899, 2017 WL 676731 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark S. Wilson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of the class A Misdemeanor of Criminal Nonsupport pursuant to Section 568.040¹ after a bench trial and sentencing [900]*900him to 30 days in the county jail. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court, as trier of fact, reasonably could have found Appellant guilty. State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Mo.banc 2015). The trial court’s sentencing decision was within its discretion. State v. Collins, 290 S.W.3d 736, 746 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mark S. Wilson (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of the class A Misdemeanor of Criminal Nonsupport pursuant to Section 568.040¹ after a bench trial and sentencing [900]*900him to 30 days in the county jail. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court, as trier of fact, reasonably could have found Appellant guilty. State v. Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d 358, 362 (Mo.banc 2015). The trial court’s sentencing decision was within its discretion. State v. Collins, 290 S.W.3d 736, 746 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

510 S.W.3d 899, 2017 WL 676731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wilson-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack