State v. Bailey

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bailey

499 S.W.3d 750, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 940, 2016 WL 5018014

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 20, 2016

DocketWD 78563

StatusPublished

This text of 499 S.W.3d 750 (State v. Bailey) 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. Bailey, 499 S.W.3d 750, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 940, 2016 WL 5018014 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Tanner Bailey appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of a controlled substance and sentence of seven years in prison. Bailey argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting marijuana and all evidence regarding its discovery and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search because the consent to search the residence was allegedly invalid (1) as the product of a pretextual stop and (2) because Tristin Chavez, who gave the consent, was not a resident of the home and lacked authority to consent to the search. Because a published opinion would be of no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Tanner Bailey appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of a controlled substance and sentence of seven years in prison. Bailey argues the trial court plainly erred in admitting marijuana and all evidence regarding its discovery and seizure in violation of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search because the consent to search the residence was allegedly invalid (1) as the product of a pretextual stop and (2) because Tristin Chavez, who gave the consent, was not a resident of the home and lacked authority to consent to the search. Because a published opinion would be of no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 S.W.3d 750, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 940, 2016 WL 5018014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bailey-moctapp-2016.