Case Name: ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Martin J. GUENTHER, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-04-08
Citations: 943 S.W.2d 308
Docket Number: No. 70660
Parties: ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Martin J. GUENTHER, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 943
Pages: 308–308

Head Matter:
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Martin J. GUENTHER, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 70660.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 8, 1997.
Frank A. Anzalone, Clayton, for defen-danVappellant.
John A. Ross, County Counselor, Jacqui De Laet Skoglund, Assistant County Counselor, St. Louis County, Clayton, for plain-tifffrespondent.
Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after his conviction following a bench trial of one count of violating a municipal assault ordinance. The court ordered him to pay a $400 fine. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence; no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).