State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/·Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Affirmed
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
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. Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant. Thomas Mark Zinna, Defendant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: Nos. 67435/70770 Handdown Date: 06/27/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. David A. Dalton Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Before Mary Rhodes Russell, P.J., Paul J. Simon, J., and Kent E. Karohl, J. Opinion:
ORDER Thomas Mark Zinna appeals from his conviction of second degree burglary, in violation of Section 569.170 RSMo 1994; stealing firearms, in violation of Section 570.030 RSMo 1994; and property damage in the second degree, in violation of Section 569.110 RSMo 1994. Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm. An extended opinion would serve no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion: This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 569.110cited
Section 569.110 RSMo
- RSMo § 569.170cited
Section 569.170 RSMo
- RSMo § 570.030cited
Section 570.030 RSMo
Rules
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
David A. McNeal, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 16, 2016#ED102152
DANIEL LEE PHERIGO, Movant-Respondent, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant.(2015)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictNovember 24, 2015#SD33559
BENJAMIN LEWIS HARPER, Movant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.(2013)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 14, 2013#SD32000
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant. Ronald Lawrence, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darrin M. Sutton, Appellant. Darrin M. Sutton, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(1997)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District