Case ID: sw3d_214/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Terry Lee WALKER, Defendant/Appellant.
    No. ED 86917.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Feb. 20, 2007.
    Margaret M. Johnston, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Lee Walker (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment of conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree and resisting arrest entered after a jury trial. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude: (1) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial and in entering a judgment of conviction of attempted robbery in the first degree because sufficient evidence existed from which a reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant threatened the immediate use of physical force upon the cashier and that Defendant displayed what appeared to be a deadly weapon when he demanded money from the cashier; and (2) the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial and in entering a judgment of conviction of resisting arrest because sufficient evidence existed from which a reasonable juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time Defendant fled, the pursuing police officer contemplated arresting Defendant for attempted robbery in the first degree. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).