State v. Joiner

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Joiner

880 S.W.2d 650, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1309, 1994 WL 411939

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Joiner. Read the opinion of the Court — 823 S.W.2d 50 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 9, 1994·No. No. 63114·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Darren G. Joiner, appeals from his conviction for first degree trafficking in drugs in violation of RSMo § 195.222 (Cum. Supp.1994). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcripts and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, [651]*651solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Darren G. Joiner, appeals from his conviction for first degree trafficking in drugs in violation of RSMo § 195.222 (Cum. Supp.1994). We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs and arguments of the parties, as well as the transcripts and the legal file, and find no clear error in the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the trial court. In addition, we find that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum, [651]*651solely for their own information, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

State v. Joiner, 880 S.W.2d 650, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 1309, 1994 WL 411939 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

880 S.W.2d 650 (State v. Joiner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related