Walton v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Walton v. State

465 S.W.3d 76, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2015 WL 3960842

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 2015·No. No. ED 101404·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darryl Walton (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Movant was convicted of two counts of distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2011); one count of second degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; and one count of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to twelve years of imprisonment on each count with all sentences to run concurrently. 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Darryl Walton (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. After a jury trial, Movant was convicted of two counts of distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo (Cum.Supp. 2011); one count of second degree drug trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; and one count of possession of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.202. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent drug offender to twelve years of imprisonment on each count with all sentences to run concurrently. 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 for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Walton v. State, 465 S.W.3d 76, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 696, 2015 WL 3960842 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

465 S.W.3d 76 (Walton v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.