State v. Robards

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Robards

114 S.W.3d 453, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2003 WL 22079606

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2003

DocketNo. ED 82012

StatusPublished

This text of 114 S.W.3d 453 (State v. Robards) 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. Robards, 114 S.W.3d 453, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2003 WL 22079606 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert J. Robards (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions and alleges trial court error in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress statements. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which the trial court might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (MoApp. E.D.1996). We also conclude that the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress statements is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the trial court did not clearly err in denying the motion. State v. Martin, 79 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Robert J. Robards (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions and alleges trial court error in denying his pre-trial motion to suppress statements. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find sufficient evidence from which the trial court might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (MoApp. E.D.1996). We also conclude that the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress statements is supported by substantial evidence, and therefore the trial court did not clearly err in denying the motion. State v. Martin, 79 S.W.3d 912, 915 (Mo.App. E.D.2002). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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 Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 S.W.3d 453, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1411, 2003 WL 22079606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robards-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack