State v. Leonard

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Leonard

157 S.W.3d 331, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2005 WL 406095

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 2005

DocketED 83645

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 S.W.3d 331 (State v. Leonard) 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. Leonard, 157 S.W.3d 331, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2005 WL 406095 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David P. Leonard (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of sale of a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing an undercover police officer to testify about the smell of ether in Defendant’s residence over Defendant’s objection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. 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.

David P. Leonard (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of two counts of sale of a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced, as a prior and persistent offender, to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues the trial court erred in allowing an undercover police officer to testify about the smell of ether in Defendant’s residence over Defendant’s objection.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 S.W.3d 331, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 283, 2005 WL 406095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-leonard-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack