State v. Bain

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bain

32 S.W.3d 137, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1569, 2000 WL 1576973

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 2000·No. No. ED 77330·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Keith Bain (Defendant) appeals from his convictions for second degree burglary, section 569.170, RSMo 1994, possession of a controlled substance, section 195.202, RSMo 1994, and possession of drug paraphernalia, section 195.233, RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the parties’ exclusive use setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Keith Bain (Defendant) appeals from his convictions for second degree burglary, section 569.170, RSMo 1994, possession of a controlled substance, section 195.202, RSMo 1994, and possession of drug paraphernalia, section 195.233, RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the parties’ exclusive use setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Bain, 32 S.W.3d 137, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 1569, 2000 WL 1576973 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

32 S.W.3d 137 (State v. Bain) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related