State v. Miller

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Miller

518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255241, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 479

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 23, 2017

DocketNo. ED 104025

StatusPublished

This text of 518 S.W.3d 901 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255241, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 479 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

[902]*902ORDER

PER CURIAM

Wendell Miller (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment, convicting him of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2011. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender pursuant to Section 195.275, RSMo. 2000, to 12 years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

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

[902]*902ORDER

PER CURIAM

Wendell Miller (“Appellant”) appeals from the judgment, convicting him of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2011. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender pursuant to Section 195.275, RSMo. 2000, to 12 years of imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 S.W.3d 901, 2017 WL 2255241, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-moctapp-2017.