Opinion
No. 72536
OPINION FILED March 12, 1998
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY, HONORABLE COLLEEN DOLAN.
Gerald M. Dunne, Kodner, Watkins, Muchnick Dunne, St. Louis, for respondent-appellant.
John J. Collins, St. Louis, for petitioner-respondent.
Before: Lawrence G. Crahan, C.J., Richard B. Teitelman, J., and Robert E. Crist, Sr. J.
ORDER
Gary Carmichael (Father) appeals the trial court's Judgment Modifying Decree of Dissolution which increased his child support obligation. Father argues that the court erred in ordering him to pay the presumed correct child support amount under Form 14 because, he says, the testimony of Margaret Carmichael (Mother) established a need for less than the presumed correct amount. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. Father's arguments are without merit. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or misapply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
ORDER
Defendant, Thomas Cunningham, appeals from the trial court's judgment entered on the jury's convictions of one count of burglary in the first degree, Section 569.160, one count of assault in the first degree, Section 565.050, one count of armed criminal action, Section 571.105, one count of attempted forcible rape, Section 566.030, one count of forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, one count of attempted forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, one count of robbery in the second degree, Section 569.030, and two counts of assault in the third degree, Section 565.070.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. Defendant contends on appeal that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict as to the attempted forcible rape, the forcible sodomy, the robbery in the second degree and the attempted forcible sodomy counts. We have reviewed the record and find that the state did produce sufficient evidence so that a reasonable juror could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to these counts.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).