Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James Albert MITCHELL, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John Elmer NICKELS, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cletus PARKER, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William A. MEADOWS, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1995-12-26
Citations: 913 S.W.2d 112
Docket Number: Nos. 67294-67297
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James Albert MITCHELL, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John Elmer NICKELS, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cletus PARKER, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William A. MEADOWS, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 913
Pages: 112–112

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. James Albert MITCHELL, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. John Elmer NICKELS, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Cletus PARKER, Defendant/Appellant; STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William A. MEADOWS, Defendant/Appellant.
Nos. 67294-67297.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Dec. 26, 1995.
Neil Bruntrager, Mary Bruntrager, Brun-trager & Billings, St. Louis, for appellants.
Stephen V. Combs, Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County, Hillsboro, for respondent.
Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendants appeal from judgments of conviction for first degree trespassing, § 569.140, RSMo 1986. They were each fined $25.00. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).