State v. Dobbins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dobbins

165 S.W.3d 197, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 1431914

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2005

DocketNo. ED 84522

StatusPublished

This text of 165 S.W.3d 197 (State v. Dobbins) 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. Dobbins, 165 S.W.3d 197, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 1431914 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul L. Dobbins (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.202 RSMo 2000. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, State v. Santillan, 1 S.W.3d 572, 578 (Mo.App. E.D.1999), or abuse its discretion, State v. Granado, 148 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Mo.banc2004), in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, because the evidence was not obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure. State v. Stacy, 121 S.W.3d 328, 332 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul L. Dobbins (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.202 RSMo 2000. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, State v. Santillan, 1 S.W.3d 572, 578 (Mo.App. E.D.1999), or abuse its discretion, State v. Granado, 148 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Mo.banc2004), in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress evidence, because the evidence was not obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure. State v. Stacy, 121 S.W.3d 328, 332 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 S.W.3d 197, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 1431914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dobbins-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack