State v. Eye

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Eye

492 S.W.3d 222, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2016 WL 3661812

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 28, 2016

DocketNo. ED 103387

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 492 S.W.3d 222 (State v. Eye) 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. Eye, 492 S.W.3d 222, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2016 WL 3661812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Randall Eye (“Eye”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court -entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine (“meth”), three counts of possession with intent to create meth, and two counts of possessing a controlled substance. Police found meth, chemicals used to .produce meth, and items used to consume meth (collectively referred to as “the contraband”) in Eye’s master bedroom and bathroom. Eye shared the master suite with his girlfriend, Tonya Greer (“Tonya”). While Eye presents six points on appeal, each point raises the same legal argument — that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he constructively possessed the contraband found in the master suite. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Appellant Randall Eye (“Eye”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court -entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of attempt to manufacture methamphetamine (“meth”), three counts of possession with intent to create meth, and two counts of possessing a controlled substance. Police found meth, chemicals used to .produce meth, and items used to consume meth (collectively referred to as “the contraband”) in Eye’s master bedroom and bathroom. Eye shared the master suite with his girlfriend, Tonya Greer (“Tonya”). While Eye presents six points on appeal, each point raises the same legal argument — that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he constructively possessed the contraband found in the master suite. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

492 S.W.3d 222, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 641, 2016 WL 3661812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-eye-moctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack