State v. Weinhaus

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Weinhaus

459 S.W.3d 916, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2015 WL 358156

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 27, 2015

DocketNo. ED 100807

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 S.W.3d 916 (State v. Weinhaus) 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. Weinhaus, 459 S.W.3d 916, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2015 WL 358156 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Weinhaus (“Appellant”) appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of: possession of morphine and marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo (2011); assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, in violation of Section 565.081; and armed criminal action, under Section 571.015 relative to Appellant’s actions toward Sergeant Henry James Folsom. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and [917]*917the 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Jeffrey Weinhaus (“Appellant”) appeals from a jury verdict finding him guilty of: possession of morphine and marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo (2011); assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, in violation of Section 565.081; and armed criminal action, under Section 571.015 relative to Appellant’s actions toward Sergeant Henry James Folsom. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and [917]*917the 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 S.W.3d 916, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 77, 2015 WL 358156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weinhaus-moctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack