STATE v. HEINTZELMAN (2022)

ORDER

Joseph Richard Heintzelman (“Heintzelman”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Pettis County, Missouri (“trial court”), finding him guilty, after a bench trial, of one count of possession of a controlled substance, section 579.015; one count of forgery, section 570.090; one count of tampering in the first degree, section 569.080; and one count of felony resisting arrest, section 575.150. On appeal, Heintzelman claims that: (1) his conviction for resisting arrest is not supported by substantial evidence in that there is not sufficient evidence that Heintzelman knew officers were trying to stop, detain, or arrest him; (2) his conviction for tampering in the first degree is not supported by substantial evidence in that there is not substantial evidence that Heintzelman knew he did not have the owner of the truck's permission to drive the truck; (3) his conviction for possession of a controlled substance is not supported by substantial evidence in that there was not substantial evidence that the substance he possessed was methamphetamine; and (4) his conviction for resisting arrest must be reversed, even if it is supported by substantial evidence, because the portion of section 575.150 that provides that resisting arrest for a felony is itself a felony is irreconcilably at odds with the portion of section 575.150 that provides that resisting arrest is a misdemeanor unless the person fleeing creates a substantial risk of serious injury or death to any person, in which case it is a felony.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Rule 30.25(b).

Per curiam: