State v. Woods

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Woods

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 3, 2005·No. ED 84609·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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).

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

Pincite

163 S.W.3d 493 (State v. Woods) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related