State v. Smith

502 S.W.3d 88, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1103, 2016 WL 6440399
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Smith. Read the opinion of the Court — 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1440
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 1, 2016·No. No. ED103957·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mitchael 0. Smith appeals from the trial court’s judgment convicting him of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s denial of Appellant’s motion to suppress was supported by substantial evidence. State v. Ross, 254 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. 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

State v. Smith, 502 S.W.3d 88, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1103, 2016 WL 6440399 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

502 S.W.3d 88 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Ross
254 S.W.3d 267 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2008)