State v. Gore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Gore

342 S.W.3d 906, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2011 WL 2456373

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 21, 2011

DocketED 95346

StatusPublished

This text of 342 S.W.3d 906 (State v. Gore) 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. Gore, 342 S.W.3d 906, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2011 WL 2456373 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Adrian Gore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Section 571.070, RSMo 2000, 1 and unlawful use of a weapon— carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 571.030.1(1). Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress physical evidence and related testimony.

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 *907 precedential value. However, 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).

1

. All future statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Adrian Gore (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Section 571.070, RSMo 2000, 1 and unlawful use of a weapon— carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 571.030.1(1). Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress physical evidence and related testimony.

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 *907 precedential value. However, 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).

1

. All future statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 S.W.3d 906, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 865, 2011 WL 2456373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gore-moctapp-2011.