State v. Brinkley

DANIEL E. SCOTT, Judge.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of evidence to support his robbery conviction, specifically that he forcibly stole. He terms such evidence “debatable,” and argues that any force he used was unrelated to theft. Such claims cannot survive our standard of review. We affirm the conviction.

Principles of Review

We do not reweigh evidence or act as a “super juror” with veto powers. State v. Castoe, 357 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Mo.App.2012). Rather, we view the record and inferences favorably to the verdict, ignoring contrary evidence and inferences, to see whether reasonable…