State v. Riefle

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Riefle

869 S.W.2d 858, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 149, 1994 WL 23767

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 1, 1994·No. No. 63212·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction by the trial court for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced as a persistent drug offender to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Defendant appeals his conviction by the trial court for possession of a controlled substance, § 195.202 RSMo Supp.1992. He was sentenced as a persistent drug offender to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm. We have reviewed the record and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Riefle, 869 S.W.2d 858, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 149, 1994 WL 23767 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

869 S.W.2d 858 (State v. Riefle) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.