State v. McGill

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McGill

252 S.W.3d 224, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2008 WL 1958924

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 2008

DocketED 90120

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 S.W.3d 224 (State v. McGill) 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. McGill, 252 S.W.3d 224, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2008 WL 1958924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sterling McGill (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223 RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior drug offender to ten years’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment 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.

Sterling McGill (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223 RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a prior drug offender to ten years’ imprisonment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 S.W.3d 224, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 632, 2008 WL 1958924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcgill-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack