State v. Castello
Opinion
A jury found defendant
On direct appeal, defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that he delivered marijuana to an undercover officer. In addition, he claims plain error in the reception of the narcotics analysis laboratory report. The evidence was sufficient and we find no plain error.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment and sentence are affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25.
Defendant filed a motion and an amended motion to vacate under Rule 29.15. The motion court denied an evidentiary hearing and entered findings, conclusions, and judgment denying defendant relief. Although defendant appealed this denial, his brief does not contain any points relating thereto. Therefore, this appeal is deemed abandoned and the motion court’s judgment is affirmed.
The indictment and substitute information in lieu of indictment both show the defendant as Jorge Castello. They both show that he uses an alias of Jorge Castillo-Perez.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
895 S.W.2d 307 (State v. Castello) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.