State v. Mason

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Mason

186 S.W.3d 456, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 327, 2006 WL 694757

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 2006

DocketNo. WD 65054

StatusPublished

This text of 186 S.W.3d 456 (State v. Mason) 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. Mason, 186 S.W.3d 456, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 327, 2006 WL 694757 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Daniel Mason appeals his conviction for the class C felony of receiving stolen property, Mo.Rev.Stat. §' 570.080 (2000). His sole point on appeal contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and other evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court 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

Daniel Mason appeals his conviction for the class C felony of receiving stolen property, Mo.Rev.Stat. §' 570.080 (2000). His sole point on appeal contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and other evidence allegedly obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential or jurisprudential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 S.W.3d 456, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 327, 2006 WL 694757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mason-moctapp-2006.