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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Paul D. Brake, Jr., 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-paul-d-brake-jr-appellant-13539
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13539
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.+Paul+D.+Brake%2C+Jr.%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&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: 28; 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. Paul D. Brake, Jr., Appellant.
Case Number:  73655
Handdown Date:  09/29/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Walter A. Murray
Counsel for Appellant:  Susan K. Roach
Counsel for Respondent:  Angela Dunn and Matthew T. Drake
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall and Ahrens, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Paul D. Brake, Jr. (Defendant) appeals from the judgment and conviction for the misdemeanor offense of third 
degree assault in violation of section 565.070, RSMo 1994, in this bench-tried case.  
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law.  Further, there is 
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  State 
v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo. banc 1993).  An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose.  We have, 
however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.  We 
affirm the judgment 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.