State v. Henderson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Henderson

948 S.W.2d 263, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 1997 WL 374488

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 8, 1997

DocketNo. 66314

StatusPublished

This text of 948 S.W.2d 263 (State v. Henderson) 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. Henderson, 948 S.W.2d 263, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 1997 WL 374488 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tyrone Henderson, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County after a jury found him guilty of two counts of drug trafficking in the first degree, RSMo section 195.222 (Cum.Supp.1992). Appellant also appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

[264]*264We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal files and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We further find the judgment denying the Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tyrone Henderson, appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court of St. Charles County after a jury found him guilty of two counts of drug trafficking in the first degree, RSMo section 195.222 (Cum.Supp.1992). Appellant also appeals the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

[264]*264We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal files and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. We further find the judgment denying the Rule 29.15 motion is not clearly erroneous. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 S.W.2d 263, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1237, 1997 WL 374488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-henderson-moctapp-1997.