State v. Dobbins

165 S.W.3d 197, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 915, 2005 WL 1431914
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 21, 2005·No. No. ED 84522·Published

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

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

165 S.W.3d 197 (State v. Dobbins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Stacy
121 S.W.3d 328 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Granado
148 S.W.3d 309 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2004)
State v. Santillan
1 S.W.3d 572 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1999)