Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shirley ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Valentino, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1980-09-02
Citations: 606 S.W.2d 214
Docket Number: No. WD31009
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shirley ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Valentino, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before CLARK, P. J., and DIXON and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 606
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Shirley ANDERSON, a/k/a Ronnie Valentino, Defendant-Appellant.
No. WD31009.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Sept. 2, 1980.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1, 1980.
Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 12,1980.
Clifford A. Cohen, Public Defender, Gary L. Gardner, Kevin R. Locke, Asst. Public Defenders, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kathleen Mills, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before CLARK, P. J., and DIXON and SOMERVILLE, JJ.

Opinion:
DIXON, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction by a jury of stealing property of a value of at least $50 and a ten-year sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to the Second Offender Act, § 556.280 RSMo 1969 (repealed effective January 1, 1979 by the Laws of 1977, Senate Bill #60, § 1).
The defendant raises a single issue, contending the evidence was insufficient showing only the presence of the defendant at the scene and an opportunity to commit the theft.
The argument is factually flawed. Defendant was identified as being a person apprehended by police officers in the process of bending over in the rear of a truck which had been broken into. The defendant's automobile contained discretely identifiable items of property taken from the truck. The defendant made contradictory statements at the scene and two days later in a subsequent interview by the police.
Viewing all the evidence tending to support the verdict as true, contrary evidence disregarded, and every inference supporting the verdict indulged, State v. Roberson, 548 S.W.2d 280 (Mo.App.1977), it is sufficient upon this record to support the verdict. An extended discussion of the facts and the law applicable to the case would serve no prece-dential purpose. Judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 84.16.