State v. Fulk

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Fulk

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 6, 2015·No. ED 101887·Published

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).

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

Pincite

471 S.W.3d 405 (State v. Fulk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.