State v. Rickey

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rickey

252 S.W.3d 226, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 629, 2008 WL 1958929

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 6, 2008

DocketED 89686

StatusPublished

This text of 252 S.W.3d 226 (State v. Rickey) 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. Rickey, 252 S.W.3d 226, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 629, 2008 WL 1958929 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Jeffrey Rickey (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo (Cum Supp 2003). Defendant was sentenced as a prior drug offender to twenty years’ imprisonment. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously admitted a statement made by Defendant which violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, pro *227 vided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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.

Jeffrey Rickey (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment after a jury found him guilty of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo (Cum Supp 2003). Defendant was sentenced as a prior drug offender to twenty years’ imprisonment. Defendant raises one point on appeal, claiming the trial court erroneously admitted a statement made by Defendant which violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. No error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. We have, however, pro *227 vided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties 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)

252 S.W.3d 226, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 629, 2008 WL 1958929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rickey-moctapp-2008.