State v. Rackley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rackley

260 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1093, 2008 WL 3843341

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 19, 2008

DocketED 90113

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 S.W.3d 432 (State v. Rackley) 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. Rackley, 260 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1093, 2008 WL 3843341 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Rackley appeals his Judgment of conviction and sentence arguing the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress Evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no error resulting in a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. Rule 30.20 1 ;State v. *433 Johnson, 220 S.W.3d 377, 385 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). 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 Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P. 2007, unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jerry Rackley appeals his Judgment of conviction and sentence arguing the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress Evidence. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no error resulting in a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice occurred. Rule 30.20 1 ;State v. *433 Johnson, 220 S.W.3d 377, 385 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). 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 Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All rule references are to Mo. R.Crim. P. 2007, unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 S.W.3d 432, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1093, 2008 WL 3843341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rackley-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack