State v. AUSLER

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. AUSLER

344 S.W.3d 883, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2011 WL 2456363

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2011

DocketED 95291

StatusPublished

This text of 344 S.W.3d 883 (State v. AUSLER) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. AUSLER, 344 S.W.3d 883, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2011 WL 2456363 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jackie Ausler (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; 1 one count of possession of a *884 controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202; and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender and sentenced Defendant to terms of ten years without the possibility of probation or parole on the drug trafficking conviction; ten years on the possession of heroin conviction, to be served concurrently with the trafficking conviction; and one day on the possession of marijuana conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jackie Ausler (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; 1 one count of possession of a *884 controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202; and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender and sentenced Defendant to terms of ten years without the possibility of probation or parole on the drug trafficking conviction; ten years on the possession of heroin conviction, to be served concurrently with the trafficking conviction; and one day on the possession of marijuana conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 S.W.3d 883, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 867, 2011 WL 2456363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ausler-moctapp-2011.