State v. Grant

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Grant

218 S.W.3d 594, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2007 WL 968389

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 3, 2007

DocketED 87246

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 218 S.W.3d 594 (State v. Grant) 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. Grant, 218 S.W.3d 594, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2007 WL 968389 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

*595 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lewis C. Grant (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction following a jury trial for the class B felony of trafficking drugs in the second degree in violation of Section 195.223, RSMo 2000. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to the statutory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed, sua sponte, to exclude evidence of prior bad acts.

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

*595 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lewis C. Grant (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction following a jury trial for the class B felony of trafficking drugs in the second degree in violation of Section 195.223, RSMo 2000. Defendant was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to the statutory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred when it failed, sua sponte, to exclude evidence of prior bad acts.

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)

218 S.W.3d 594, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 543, 2007 WL 968389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grant-moctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack