State v. Bell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Bell

45 S.W.3d 503, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2001 WL 345643

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78032

StatusPublished

This text of 45 S.W.3d 503 (State v. Bell) 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. Bell, 45 S.W.3d 503, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2001 WL 345643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dimitri Bell was convicted of possession of marijuana and crack cocaine, with intent to distribute, § 195.211 RSMo 1994, and resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1994. On May 15, 2000 he was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to concurrent terms of ten years for the marijuana count, seven years for the crack cocaine count and six months for resisting arrest. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to terms of incarceration previously imposed. Bell appeals, alleging [504]*504that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on the possession counts and that the court erred in admitting into evidence a mug shot used to identify him as the man who escaped from the crime scene.

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. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Dimitri Bell was convicted of possession of marijuana and crack cocaine, with intent to distribute, § 195.211 RSMo 1994, and resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1994. On May 15, 2000 he was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to concurrent terms of ten years for the marijuana count, seven years for the crack cocaine count and six months for resisting arrest. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively to terms of incarceration previously imposed. Bell appeals, alleging [504]*504that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions on the possession counts and that the court erred in admitting into evidence a mug shot used to identify him as the man who escaped from the crime scene.

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. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 S.W.3d 503, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 618, 2001 WL 345643, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bell-moctapp-2001.