State v. Buckner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Buckner

283 S.W.3d 300, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 643, 2009 WL 1383611

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 19, 2009

DocketED 91519

StatusPublished

This text of 283 S.W.3d 300 (State v. Buckner) 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. Buckner, 283 S.W.3d 300, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 643, 2009 WL 1383611 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kevin Buckner (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of trafficking in the second degree, one count of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. He also argues the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding cocaine base, heroin, *301 and drug paraphernalia found in his home, and the court erred in denying his peremptory strike of a juror.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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.

Kevin Buckner (“defendant”) appeals the judgment on his conviction of one count of trafficking in the second degree, one count of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant claims there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions for trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. He also argues the trial court erred in allowing evidence regarding cocaine base, heroin, *301 and drug paraphernalia found in his home, and the court erred in denying his peremptory strike of a juror.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 S.W.3d 300, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 643, 2009 WL 1383611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckner-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack