State v. Dunger

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dunger

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 4, 2000·No. No. ED 76302·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] RSMo (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] RSMo (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).

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

Pincite

14 S.W.3d 732 (State v. Dunger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related