Where a defendant challenged his conviction for receiving stolen property, evidence that the defendant purchased items on the victim’s charge account that were not clearly authorized by the parties’ contract, even after the victim stated this, and after the defendant pawned the items purchased for cash, was sufficient to support the conviction, and the trial court did not err in submitting the verdict director for receiving stolen property, but the court plainly erred in its restitution order, so the judgment is modified to correct the amount.
Judgment is affirmed; modified.
State v. Garcia (MLW No. 73973/Case No. WD81687 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Hardwick, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Livingston County, Chapman, J. (Tyler P. Coyle, Columbia, for appellant) (Evan J. Buchheim, Jefferson City, for respondent).