State v. Belton

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Belton

104 S.W.3d 805, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 21154233

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 20, 2003

DocketNo. WD 61477

StatusPublished

This text of 104 S.W.3d 805 (State v. Belton) 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. Belton, 104 S.W.3d 805, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 21154233 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Felicia L. Belton appeals her conviction, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Saline County, of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, § 195.211.2. As a result of her conviction, the appellant was sentenced to twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

In her sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for directed verdict of acquittal because the State failed to make a submissible case against her as a principal or an aider and abettor in that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, as required, that she or her husband had access and control over the premises where the marijuana was found.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Felicia L. Belton appeals her conviction, after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Saline County, of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, § 195.211.2. As a result of her conviction, the appellant was sentenced to twelve years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

In her sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for directed verdict of acquittal because the State failed to make a submissible case against her as a principal or an aider and abettor in that the evidence was insufficient for the jury to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, as required, that she or her husband had access and control over the premises where the marijuana was found.

Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 S.W.3d 805, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 722, 2003 WL 21154233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-belton-moctapp-2003.