Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael C. Meagher, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-michael-c-meagher-defendant-appe-16776
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16776
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent%2C+v.+Michael+C.+Meagher%2C+Defendant-Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael C. Meagher, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 71018
Handdown Date:  09/16/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant:  Dorothy M. Hirzy
Counsel for Respondent:  John M. Morris III and David R. Truman
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur.
Opinion:

ORDER
Michael C. Meagher appeals from a judgment upon his conviction by a jury of stealing over $150, Section 
570.030, RSMo 1994.  Defendant was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and fined $2,000.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without 
merit.  An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value.  The parties 
have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.  The judgment 
is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). 
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.