State v. Dunger

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dunger

14 S.W.3d 732, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 486, 2000 WL 342251

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 4, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76302

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 S.W.3d 732 (State v. Dunger) 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. Dunger, 14 S.W.3d 732, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 486, 2000 WL 342251 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Terry Dunger (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a violation of Section 195.211 [733]*733RSMo (1994). Defendant alleges trial court error in overruling Defendant’s motions for mistrial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Ozier, 961 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment 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.

Terry Dunger (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a violation of Section 195.211 [733]*733RSMo (1994). Defendant alleges trial court error in overruling Defendant’s motions for mistrial. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Ozier, 961 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 S.W.3d 732, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 486, 2000 WL 342251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dunger-moctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack