State v. Carter, 949 S.W.2d 211 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Carter, 949 S.W.2d 211 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: State v. Brinkley (moctapp, 2012-05-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Brinkley
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
The jury could have found that Appellant began struggling with the officer not only to avoid apprehension but to retain the property [he] had taken.” State v. Norton, 949 S.W.2d 211, 214 (Mo.App.1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See, e.g., State v. Madin, 113 S.W.3d 304, 306-07 (Mo.App. 2003) (defendant struggled with supermarket employees while trying to leave store with stolen liquor); State v. Norton, 949 S.W.2d 211, 213-14 (Mo.App.1997) (defendant struggled with loss-prevention officer while trying to leave store with stolen shirts); State v. Jolly, 820 S.W.2d 734, 735-36 (Mo.App.1991) (defendant struggled with victim by pulling on bank deposit bag with both hands to dislodge it from victim’s grasp); State v. Applewhite, 771 S.W.2d 865, 867-68 (Mo.App.1989) (defendant pushed store employee against door while fle…
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Webber
Mo. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
See State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 916 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Norton, 949 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Mo.App.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri
v.
Kevin CARTER
No. 70348.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Jun 3, 1997.
949 S.W.2d 211
Raymund J. Capeloviteh, Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jacqueline K. Hamra, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Dowd, Gaertner, Reinhard.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kevin Carter, appeals the judgment of conviction for assault in the first degree, RSMo § 565.050, and armed criminal action, RSMo § 571.015, entered by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of conviction is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.