State v. Nettles

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Nettles

458 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 311, 2015 WL 1384090

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 2015

DocketNo. ED 101130

StatusPublished

This text of 458 S.W.3d 848 (State v. Nettles) 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. Nettles, 458 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 311, 2015 WL 1384090 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Nettles (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements and finding him guilty on each of five counts: four counts of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2010, and one count of the class A misdemeanor of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2010. 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 80.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Nicholas Nettles (“Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, denying his motion to suppress evidence and statements and finding him guilty on each of five counts: four counts of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2010, and one count of the class A misdemeanor of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2010. 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 80.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 S.W.3d 848, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 311, 2015 WL 1384090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nettles-moctapp-2015.