State v. Woods

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Woods

163 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2005 WL 1018189

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 3, 2005

DocketED 84609

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 S.W.3d 493 (State v. Woods) 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. Woods, 163 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2005 WL 1018189 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Perry R. Woods (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of stealing. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of stealing. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Perry R. Woods (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of stealing. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that sufficient evidence existed for a reasonable jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of stealing. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.W.3d 493, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 689, 2005 WL 1018189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-woods-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack