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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Nicholas Breakfield, 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-respondent-v-nicholas-breakfield-appellant-12826
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12826
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.+Nicholas+Breakfield%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&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: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## 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. Nicholas Breakfield, Appellant.
Case Number:  72001
Handdown Date:  05/05/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Philip D. Heagney
Counsel for Appellant:  John M. Schilmoeller
Counsel for Respondent:  Cristi A. Ingalsbe
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall and Karohl, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Nicholas Breakfield, Defendant, appeals from the judgment entered after he was found guilty of first degree 
burglary pursuant to section 569.160, RSMo 1994 in a bench-tried case.  The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior 
and persistent offender to twenty years imprisonment.  
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law.  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 
pursuant to 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.