Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel KENNEMORE, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-03-18
Citations: 941 S.W.2d 764
Docket Number: No. 70235
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel KENNEMORE, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 941
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Daniel KENNEMORE, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 70235.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
March 18, 1997.
Steven D. Miller, St. Louis, Brian E. Zink, St. Charles, for Defendant/Appellant.
Tim Braun, Prosecuting Attorney, Tanya Muhm Williams, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Charles County, St. Charles, for Plaintiff/Respondent.
Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Kennemore challenges the sufficiency of the state's evidence and a possible conflict of his defense attorney in his appeal of a class A misdemeanor in the third degree conviction. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).