State v. Johnson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Johnson

36 S.W.3d 408, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 2001 WL 32795

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

DocketNo. ED 77760

StatusPublished

This text of 36 S.W.3d 408 (State v. Johnson) 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. Johnson, 36 S.W.3d 408, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 2001 WL 32795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Johnson appeals from the judgment entered in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County convicting him of one count of possession of a controlled substance in a correctional institution, in violation of Section 217.360, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion for their exclusive use detailing the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Johnson appeals from the judgment entered in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County convicting him of one count of possession of a controlled substance in a correctional institution, in violation of Section 217.360, RSMo 1994. He was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended opinion reciting detailed facts and restating principles of law. We have, however, provided the parties with a memorandum opinion for their exclusive use detailing the reasons for this decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 S.W.3d 408, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 50, 2001 WL 32795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnson-moctapp-2001.