State v. Edmond

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Edmond

356 S.W.3d 876, 2012 WL 122863, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 36

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 17, 2012

DocketED 95824

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 356 S.W.3d 876 (State v. Edmond) 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. Edmond, 356 S.W.3d 876, 2012 WL 122863, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 36 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tony Edmond appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions for second-degree trafficking and possession of a controlled substance.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Tony Edmond appeals the judgment entered upon a jury’s verdict convicting him of second-degree trafficking and possession of a controlled substance. We find that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions for second-degree trafficking and possession of a controlled substance.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

356 S.W.3d 876, 2012 WL 122863, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 36, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edmond-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack