State v. Truitt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Truitt

180 S.W.3d 45, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1895, 2005 WL 3466061

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 20, 2005

DocketED 85155

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 180 S.W.3d 45 (State v. Truitt) 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. Truitt, 180 S.W.3d 45, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1895, 2005 WL 3466061 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Laneva J. Truitt (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon her convictions by a jury of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance near a school in violation of Section 195.214, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling her motion for *46 judgment of acquittal because there was not sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found Defendant guilty

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment 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.

Laneva J. Truitt (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon her convictions by a jury of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance near a school in violation of Section 195.214, RSMo 2000, for which Defendant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently. Defendant contends the trial court erred in overruling her motion for *46 judgment of acquittal because there was not sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could have found Defendant guilty

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 S.W.3d 45, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1895, 2005 WL 3466061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-truitt-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack