State v. Amelunke

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Amelunke

894 S.W.2d 231, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 388, 1995 WL 90477

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 7, 1995·No. No. 65769·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction from a bench trial for the offense of manufacturing more than five grams of marijuana, a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo Cum. [232]*232Supp.1992. Defendant claims that evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant in which the affidavit in support was insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and, therefore, the evidence should not have been admitted. We affirm the trial court. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction from a bench trial for the offense of manufacturing more than five grams of marijuana, a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo Cum. [232]*232Supp.1992. Defendant claims that evidence was seized pursuant to a search warrant in which the affidavit in support was insufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, and, therefore, the evidence should not have been admitted. We affirm the trial court. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no prece-dential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Amelunke, 894 S.W.2d 231, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 388, 1995 WL 90477 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

894 S.W.2d 231 (State v. Amelunke) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.