State v. Fulk

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fulk

471 S.W.3d 405, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2015 WL 5824026

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 2015

DocketED 101887

StatusPublished

This text of 471 S.W.3d 405 (State v. Fulk) 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. Fulk, 471 S.W.3d 405, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2015 WL 5824026 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Gary Fulk (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of production of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013; possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013; and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, in violation of Section 195.233, RSMo (2000). 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed 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

Gary Fulk (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury trial convicting him of production of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013; possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013; and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, in violation of Section 195.233, RSMo (2000). 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 S.W.3d 405, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 1006, 2015 WL 5824026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fulk-moctapp-2015.