Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher N. BRODHACKER, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2000-12-26
Citations: 34 S.W.3d 851
Docket Number: No. ED 77032
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher N. BRODHACKER, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before MOONEY, P.J., SIMON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 34
Pages: 851–851

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Christopher N. BRODHACKER, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 77032.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Dec. 26, 2000.
James C. Dowling, Fulton, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Before MOONEY, P.J., SIMON, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Christopher N. Brodhacker (Appellant) appeals the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of attempting to manufacture or to produce a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (1994). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo. banc 1989). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).