State v. Campbell

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Campbell

285 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 878, 2009 WL 1758948

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 2009

DocketED 91520

StatusPublished

This text of 285 S.W.3d 825 (State v. Campbell) 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. Campbell, 285 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 878, 2009 WL 1758948 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Albert Campbell (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to a term of ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find there was sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

Albert Campbell (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2000). Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to a term of ten years’ imprisonment. Appellant’s sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal. We find there was sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s conviction. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 S.W.3d 825, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 878, 2009 WL 1758948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-campbell-moctapp-2009.