State v. Auld

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Auld

895 S.W.2d 636, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 1995 WL 128455

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 28, 1995·No. No. 66071·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction in a judge tried case for one felony count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and one misdemeanor count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to a five year term of imprisonment on the felony count and a concurrent one year term on the misdemeanor. We affirm. 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. The. parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to 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 in a judge tried case for one felony count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994, and one misdemeanor count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to a five year term of imprisonment on the felony count and a concurrent one year term on the misdemeanor. We affirm. 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. The. parties have been furnished with a memorandum for them information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Auld, 895 S.W.2d 636, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 628, 1995 WL 128455 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

895 S.W.2d 636 (State v. Auld) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.