State v. Morgan

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Morgan

126 S.W.3d 769, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 96, 2004 WL 116537

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2004

DocketNo. ED 82741

StatusPublished

This text of 126 S.W.3d 769 (State v. Morgan) 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. Morgan, 126 S.W.3d 769, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 96, 2004 WL 116537 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James Morgan (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. This appeal follows. We affirm.

In his sole point on appeal, Defendant seeks plain error review of the trial court’s alleged erroneous failure to dismiss the case sua sponte. Defendant claims his arrest, prosecution, and conviction for delivery of a controlled substance were the result of outrageous conduct by an undercover police detective and other police officers, and the trial court’s failure to dismiss the case resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a manifest injustice.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim 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 have no jurisprudential value. 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.

James Morgan (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211 RSMo (2000). The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. This appeal follows. We affirm.

In his sole point on appeal, Defendant seeks plain error review of the trial court’s alleged erroneous failure to dismiss the case sua sponte. Defendant claims his arrest, prosecution, and conviction for delivery of a controlled substance were the result of outrageous conduct by an undercover police detective and other police officers, and the trial court’s failure to dismiss the case resulted in a miscarriage of justice and a manifest injustice.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claim 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 have no jurisprudential value. 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)

126 S.W.3d 769, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 96, 2004 WL 116537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-morgan-moctapp-2004.