State v. Riley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Riley

369 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 2322258, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 834

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 19, 2012

DocketNo. ED 97025

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 369 S.W.3d 85 (State v. Riley) 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. Riley, 369 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 2322258, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Franklin Riley, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Marion County following his‘ conviction by a jury of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of section 195.211 RSMo. (Supp.2011), and possession of anhydrous ammonia in a non-approved container, in violation of section 578.154.¹ The trial court sentenced the defendant as a prior offender to a total of nineteen years of imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Franklin Riley, appeals the judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Marion County following his‘ conviction by a jury of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, in violation of section 195.211 RSMo. (Supp.2011), and possession of anhydrous ammonia in a non-approved container, in violation of section 578.154.¹ The trial court sentenced the defendant as a prior offender to a total of nineteen years of imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

369 S.W.3d 85, 2012 WL 2322258, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-riley-moctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack