State v. ESCAMILLA-DIAZ

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. ESCAMILLA-DIAZ

311 S.W.3d 391, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 752, 2010 WL 2265095

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 2010

DocketWD 70754

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 311 S.W.3d 391 (State v. ESCAMILLA-DIAZ) 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. ESCAMILLA-DIAZ, 311 S.W.3d 391, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 752, 2010 WL 2265095 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Ernesto Escamilla-Diaz appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, § 195.211, RSMo, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In his single Point Relied On, Es-camilla-Diaz claims that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to evidence that he and an accomplice originally planned to transport 1,500 pounds of marijuana from Kansas City to Kentucky in a semi-truck, conduct for *392 which he was not charged. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Ernesto Escamilla-Diaz appeals his conviction following a jury trial for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, § 195.211, RSMo, for which he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. In his single Point Relied On, Es-camilla-Diaz claims that the trial court abused its discretion by overruling his objection to evidence that he and an accomplice originally planned to transport 1,500 pounds of marijuana from Kansas City to Kentucky in a semi-truck, conduct for *392 which he was not charged. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

311 S.W.3d 391, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 752, 2010 WL 2265095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-escamilla-diaz-moctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack