State v. McPhearson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. McPhearson

169 S.W.3d 548, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2005 WL 1945484

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2005

DocketED 84718

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 S.W.3d 548 (State v. McPhearson) 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. McPhearson, 169 S.W.3d 548, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2005 WL 1945484 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean McPhearson, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), Section 195.202, RSMo.2000, 1 possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, section 195.233, and driving with a revoked license, section 302.321. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties, however, 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).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo.2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Jean McPhearson, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), Section 195.202, RSMo.2000, 1 possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use, section 195.233, and driving with a revoked license, section 302.321. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. The parties, however, 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).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo.2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.W.3d 548, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2005 WL 1945484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mcphearson-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack