Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

STATE OF MISSOURI, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, v. ANTOINETTE COLLINS, PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT. ANTOINETTE COLLINS, DEFENDANT/APPELLANT,

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of stealing property with a value of at least $150, § 570.030, RSMo 1986. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The evidence in support of the jury's verdict is not insufficient and no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. COLLINS
(Feb 2, 1993)