State v. Frazier

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Frazier

920 S.W.2d 107, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1996 WL 93815

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 5, 1996

DocketNos. 64907, 67474

StatusPublished

This text of 920 S.W.2d 107 (State v. Frazier) 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. Frazier, 920 S.W.2d 107, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1996 WL 93815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1992, one count of delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1992, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1992, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen, fifteen and ten years imprisonment respectively. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202, RSMo 1992, one count of delivery of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1992, and one count of resisting arrest, § 575.150, RSMo 1992, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen, fifteen and ten years imprisonment respectively. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evi-dentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

920 S.W.2d 107, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 367, 1996 WL 93815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-frazier-moctapp-1996.