State v. Paden

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Paden

204 S.W.3d 753, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1683, 2006 WL 3240812

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 7, 2006

DocketNo. WD 65031

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 S.W.3d 753 (State v. Paden) 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. Paden, 204 S.W.3d 753, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1683, 2006 WL 3240812 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Jermaine C. Paden appeals the judgment of his conviction, after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, of trafficking in the second degree, in violation of § 195.223. The State charged that “on or about January 3, 2003, in the County of Jackson, State of Missouri, the defendant possessed: 6 grams or more of a mixture of substance containing cocaine base, a controlled substance, knowing of its presence and nature.” As a result of his conviction, he was sentenced, as a prior offender, § 558.016, and as a prior drug offender, § 195.296, to a term of ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal, at the close of the State’s and all the evidence, because the State failed to prove, as [754]*754a matter of due process, the essential element of the offense, as provided in § 195.223, that he was in “possession” of the cocaine that was seized.

We affirm 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.

Jermaine C. Paden appeals the judgment of his conviction, after a bench trial in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, of trafficking in the second degree, in violation of § 195.223. The State charged that “on or about January 3, 2003, in the County of Jackson, State of Missouri, the defendant possessed: 6 grams or more of a mixture of substance containing cocaine base, a controlled substance, knowing of its presence and nature.” As a result of his conviction, he was sentenced, as a prior offender, § 558.016, and as a prior drug offender, § 195.296, to a term of ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.

In his sole point on appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal, at the close of the State’s and all the evidence, because the State failed to prove, as [754]*754a matter of due process, the essential element of the offense, as provided in § 195.223, that he was in “possession” of the cocaine that was seized.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.W.3d 753, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1683, 2006 WL 3240812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-paden-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack