State v. Carrender

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Carrender

391 S.W.3d 926, 2013 WL 703857, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 219

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 26, 2013·No. No. WD 74725·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Carrender (“Carrender”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. Car-render argues on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and in admitting evidence found on his person and in his truck. Carren-der claims that the evidence should have been excluded because it was obtained as a result of a police officer detaining him without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Carrender (“Carrender”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. Car-render argues on appeal that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and in admitting evidence found on his person and in his truck. Carren-der claims that the evidence should have been excluded because it was obtained as a result of a police officer detaining him without reasonable suspicion that he was engaged in illegal activity. We affirm. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Carrender, 391 S.W.3d 926, 2013 WL 703857, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

391 S.W.3d 926 (State v. Carrender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.