State v. ROCKENSTEIN

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. ROCKENSTEIN

220 S.W.3d 893, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 688, 2007 WL 1246841

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 2007

DocketED 88827

StatusPublished

This text of 220 S.W.3d 893 (State v. ROCKENSTEIN) 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. ROCKENSTEIN, 220 S.W.3d 893, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 688, 2007 WL 1246841 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Rockenstein (hereinafter, “Rockenstein”) was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2002). 1 Rockenstein filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his vehicle and to suppress statements he made while in custody. The trial court granted Rockenstein’s motion, and the State filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order pursuant to Section 547.200.1(3).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find the trial court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2002) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Rockenstein (hereinafter, “Rockenstein”) was charged with one count of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo (2002). 1 Rockenstein filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized during a search of his vehicle and to suppress statements he made while in custody. The trial court granted Rockenstein’s motion, and the State filed an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order pursuant to Section 547.200.1(3).

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find the trial court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo (2002) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 S.W.3d 893, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 688, 2007 WL 1246841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rockenstein-moctapp-2007.