State v. Hill

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hill

39 S.W.3d 85, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 454, 2001 WL 244153

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Hill. Read the opinion of the Court — 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1121 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 13, 2001·No. No. ED 77651·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

On January 4, 2000, Denez Hill was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, § 191.202, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to a one year term in the Warren County jail. Hill appeals, alleging that the prosecution failed to present evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he both (1) possessed and (2) had knowledge of the illegal substance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. 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.

On January 4, 2000, Denez Hill was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, § 191.202, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to a one year term in the Warren County jail. Hill appeals, alleging that the prosecution failed to present evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he both (1) possessed and (2) had knowledge of the illegal substance.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Hill, 39 S.W.3d 85, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 454, 2001 WL 244153 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

39 S.W.3d 85 (State v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.