STATE v. AUSLER, 344 S.W.3d 883 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco111209001033
Visitors: 14
Filed: Aug. 08, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2011
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Jackie Ausler (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; 1 one count of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202; and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender and sentenced Defendant
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Jackie Ausler (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223; 1 one count of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202; and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender and sentenced Defendant ..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jackie Ausler (Defendant) appeals from the trial court's judgment after a jury found him guilty of one count of second-degree trafficking, in violation of Section 195.223;1 one count of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202; and one count of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202. The trial court found Defendant to be a prior and persistent offender and a prior and persistent drug offender and sentenced Defendant to terms of ten years without the possibility of probation or parole on the drug trafficking conviction; ten years on the possession of heroin conviction, to be served concurrently with the trafficking conviction; and one day on the possession of marijuana conviction.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
FootNotes
1. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.
Source: Leagle
