State v. Shy

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Shy

52 S.W.3d 585, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 847, 2001 WL 537103

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 2001

DocketNo. ED 78123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 S.W.3d 585 (State v. Shy) 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. Shy, 52 S.W.3d 585, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 847, 2001 WL 537103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

William Shy (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of § 195.211 RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a prior drug offender to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal Defendant raises eight claims of error, relating specifically to: (1) alleged discovery violations; (2) denial of his motion to suppress; (3) denial of his motion for change of venue; (4) allowing the State to amend its information on the day of trial to charge him as a prior drug offender; (5) alleged improper remarks by a juror during voir dire, (6) alleged error in the admission of evidence during trial; (7) the sufficiency of evidence; and (8) alleged improper closing argument by the prosecutor.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, prepared an accompanying memorandum solely for the use of the parties setting forth the- reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

William Shy (Defendant) appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, in violation of § 195.211 RSMo 2000, for which he was sentenced as a prior drug offender to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment. On appeal Defendant raises eight claims of error, relating specifically to: (1) alleged discovery violations; (2) denial of his motion to suppress; (3) denial of his motion for change of venue; (4) allowing the State to amend its information on the day of trial to charge him as a prior drug offender; (5) alleged improper remarks by a juror during voir dire, (6) alleged error in the admission of evidence during trial; (7) the sufficiency of evidence; and (8) alleged improper closing argument by the prosecutor.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and transcript. No error of law appears, and an extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, prepared an accompanying memorandum solely for the use of the parties setting forth the- reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 S.W.3d 585, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 847, 2001 WL 537103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-shy-moctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack