STEINBRUEGGE v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

STEINBRUEGGE v. State

248 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 415, 2008 WL 821003

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

DocketED 89914

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 636 (STEINBRUEGGE v. State) 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

STEINBRUEGGE v. State, 248 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 415, 2008 WL 821003 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Adam Steinbruegge (Movant) appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction rehef motion without an evidentiary hearing after Mov-ant pled guilty to felony stealing and accepted a seven-year prison sentence. Movant alleges three points of error, all of which are premised on his assertion that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a *637 memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Adam Steinbruegge (Movant) appeals the circuit court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 post-conviction rehef motion without an evidentiary hearing after Mov-ant pled guilty to felony stealing and accepted a seven-year prison sentence. Movant alleges three points of error, all of which are premised on his assertion that the State’s evidence was insufficient to support the charge.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude that the trial court did not clearly err. Rule 24.035(k). No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, a *637 memorandum has been provided to the parties for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 636, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 415, 2008 WL 821003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbruegge-v-state-moctapp-2008.