Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. Ronald Hugger, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-plaintiff-respondent-v-ronald-hugger-defendant-appellan-16617
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16617
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Plaintiff-Respondent%2C+vs.+Ronald+Hugger%2C+Defendant-Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Syllabus

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. Ronald Hugger, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Number:  No. 70798
Handdown Date:  05/20/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Steven H. Goldman
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam.
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.
Opinion:

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J., and James R. Reinhard and Gary M. Gaertner, JJ.
ORDER

---

## PER CURIAM.

Ronald Hugger (Defendant) appeals after his conviction by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County of one count of 
second- degree drug trafficking in violation of section 195.223, RSMo 1994.  He was sentenced as a persistent offender to 
ten years in the custody of the Department of Corrections.  We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. 
An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.  However, the 
parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for 

this order.  The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). 
Separate Opinion:
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.