State v. Scott

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Scott

173 S.W.3d 927, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1532, 2005 WL 2746654

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketED 84785

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 173 S.W.3d 927 (State v. Scott) 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. Scott, 173 S.W.3d 927, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1532, 2005 WL 2746654 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking drugs other than methamphetamine and containing more than six grams of cocaine base, in violation of Section 195.223 1 , and one count of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to sell, in violation of 195.211. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent drug offender, subject to an extended term of imprisonment, and sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of eleven years’ imprisonment on the trafficking count and one year’s imprisonment on the possession count.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Antwan Scott (Defendant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment and sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking drugs other than methamphetamine and containing more than six grams of cocaine base, in violation of Section 195.223 1 , and one count of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to sell, in violation of 195.211. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent drug offender, subject to an extended term of imprisonment, and sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of eleven years’ imprisonment on the trafficking count and one year’s imprisonment on the possession count.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no jurisprudential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.3d 927, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1532, 2005 WL 2746654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scott-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack