State v. Rackley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rackley

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 19, 2008·No. ED 90113·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

Pincite

260 S.W.3d 432 (State v. Rackley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related