Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Floyd D. POERTNER, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-06-28
Citations: 83 S.W.3d 653
Docket Number: No. ED 75954
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Floyd D. POERTNER, Appellant.
Judges: Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and MARY K. HOFF, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 83
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Floyd D. POERTNER, Appellant.
No. ED 75954.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
June 28, 2002.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 7, 2002.
Application for Transfer Denied Sept. 24, 2002.
Kent Denzel, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before JAMES R. DOWD, C.J., and PAUL J. SIMON and MARY K. HOFF, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Floyd D. Poertner, defendant, appeals the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict finding him guilty of armed criminal action, section 571.015 RSMo (1997) (all further references herein shall be to RSMo 1997 unless otherwise noted), and involuntary manslaughter, section 565.021. In his sole point on appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in entering judgment because, under section 562.021, the mental state of recklessness does not support a charge of armed criminal action. Rather, it requires a mental state of either purposeful or knowing conduct, but the jury specifically found that Mr. Poertner acted recklessly, not knowingly, in finding him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).