State v. Gauch

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gauch

175 S.W.3d 184, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2005 WL 2850509

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 2005

DocketED 85417

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.W.3d 184 (State v. Gauch) 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. Gauch, 175 S.W.3d 184, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2005 WL 2850509 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William W. Gauch (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, Section 195.202, RSMo 2000, and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, Section 565.202, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to two concurrent sentences of twelve years’ imprisonment.

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 principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

William W. Gauch (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his convictions by a jury of possession of methamphetamine, Section 195.202, RSMo 2000, and attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, Section 565.202, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to two concurrent sentences of twelve years’ imprisonment.

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 principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.W.3d 184, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1609, 2005 WL 2850509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gauch-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack