State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

23 S.W.3d 640, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 718, 2000 WL 622844

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 2000

DocketNo. ED 76542

StatusPublished

This text of 23 S.W.3d 640 (State v. Smith) 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. Smith, 23 S.W.3d 640, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 718, 2000 WL 622844 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Johnny E. Smith (“Defendant”) appeals a judgment on a conviction finding him guilty of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, section 195.223 RSMo (1994), and one count of misde[641]*641meanor possession of marijuana, section 195.202 RSMo (1994). He contends the trial court plainly erred in finding he had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and the trial court erred in overruling his motions for a judgment of acquittal as the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had constructive possession of the bedroom in which the drugs were found.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Johnny E. Smith (“Defendant”) appeals a judgment on a conviction finding him guilty of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, section 195.223 RSMo (1994), and one count of misde[641]*641meanor possession of marijuana, section 195.202 RSMo (1994). He contends the trial court plainly erred in finding he had knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and the trial court erred in overruling his motions for a judgment of acquittal as the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he had constructive possession of the bedroom in which the drugs were found.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 S.W.3d 640, 2000 Mo. App. LEXIS 718, 2000 WL 622844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-2000.