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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Arnell Edwards, Appellants.
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-respondent-v-arnell-edwards-appellants-13103
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13103
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+Respondent%2C+v.+Arnell+Edwards%2C+Appellants.&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, Respondent, v. Arnell Edwards, Appellants.
Case Number:  72604
Handdown Date:  04/07/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant:  Irene Karns
Counsel for Respondent:  Christine Blegen
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Karohl, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
O R D E R
Arnell Edwards, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of possession of a 
controlled substance in violation of section 195.292, RSMo 1994, and unlawful use of a weapon in violation of section 
571.030, RSMP Cum. Supp. 1997.  Defendant appeals only his conviction for unlawful use of a weapon, claiming 
insufficient evidence.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which a 
reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 
(Mo. Banc 1993).  A written opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and we affirm by summary order pursuant to 
Rule 30.25(b).  We have, however, prepared a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the 
reasons for our decision.  We affirm the judgment.
Separate Opinion:

None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.