State v. Moore

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Moore

278 S.W.3d 714, 2009 WL 792041

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 91079

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 714 (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, 278 S.W.3d 714, 2009 WL 792041 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

*715 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Moore (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of second-degree trafficking, Section 195.228, 1 and one count of marijuana possession, Section 195.202. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

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

*715 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Moore (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of one count of second-degree trafficking, Section 195.228, 1 and one count of marijuana possession, Section 195.202. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and there was sufficient evidence that a reasonable juror could have found Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 714, 2009 WL 792041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack