State v. Green

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Green

101 S.W.3d 295, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 100, 2003 WL 174544

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 28, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81143

StatusPublished

This text of 101 S.W.3d 295 (State v. Green) 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. Green, 101 S.W.3d 295, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 100, 2003 WL 174544 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Green (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering forfeiture of $55,859.45 to the State of Missouri pursuant to the Missouri Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, Section 518.600 RSMo (2002). The trial court held that the currency was “used in the course of, derived from, or realized from criminal activity” pursuant to Section 513.607 RSMo (2002). Appellant claims there was not substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, and it erred in taking judicial notice of this Court’s opinion in State v. Meeks, 59 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.App. E.D.2001).

[296]*296We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence. See Meeks, 59 S.W.3d at 534. Additionally, there was no error in taking judicial notice of our previous opinion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Green (hereinafter, “Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering forfeiture of $55,859.45 to the State of Missouri pursuant to the Missouri Criminal Activity Forfeiture Act, Section 518.600 RSMo (2002). The trial court held that the currency was “used in the course of, derived from, or realized from criminal activity” pursuant to Section 513.607 RSMo (2002). Appellant claims there was not substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment, and it erred in taking judicial notice of this Court’s opinion in State v. Meeks, 59 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.App. E.D.2001).

[296]*296We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court’s judgment was supported by substantial evidence. See Meeks, 59 S.W.3d at 534. Additionally, there was no error in taking judicial notice of our previous opinion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.W.3d 295, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 100, 2003 WL 174544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-green-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack