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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard Neal Schone, Appellant; Richard Neal Schone, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
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-richard-neal-schone-appellant-richard-neal-16972
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16972
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.+Richard+Neal+Schone%2C+Appellant%3B+Richard+Neal+Schone%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&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)

---
## Syllabus

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. Richard Neal Schone, Appellant; Richard Neal Schone, Appellant, 
v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  Nos. 66748 & 70828
Handdown Date:  05/27/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Donald E. Dalton
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.
Opinion:

Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard, and Gaertner, JJ.

---

## PER CURIAM

O R D E R
Appellant,   Richard   Neal   Schone,   appeals   the   judgment   of   conviction   for   attempted   burglary   in   the 
second degree, RSMo sections 569.170 (1986) and 564.011 (1986), entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles 
County after a jury trial.  We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by 
sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears.  As an extended 
opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). 

Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.