State v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Smith

80 S.W.3d 483, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245, 2002 WL 1275763

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79713

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.W.3d 483 (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, 80 S.W.3d 483, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245, 2002 WL 1275763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Smith, the defendant, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for one count of trafficking in the second degree, in violation of section 195.223 RSMo. (2000). He claims the trial court erred in its denial of his motion to suppress and its admission of the challenged evidence. Upon review of the record, we find that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in denying the defendant’s motion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment 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.

Reginald Smith, the defendant, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for one count of trafficking in the second degree, in violation of section 195.223 RSMo. (2000). He claims the trial court erred in its denial of his motion to suppress and its admission of the challenged evidence. Upon review of the record, we find that the trial court was not clearly erroneous in denying the defendant’s motion. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.W.3d 483, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1245, 2002 WL 1275763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-moctapp-2002.