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

Case: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Ronald E. Armstrong, 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-plaintiffrespondent-v-ronald-e-armstrong-defendantappel-13327
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13327
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%2FRespondent%2C+v.+Ronald+E.+Armstrong%2C+Defendant%2FAppellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&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: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

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, v. Ronald E. Armstrong, Defendant/Appellant.
Case Number:  73321
Handdown Date:  10/27/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. John J. Riley
Counsel for Appellant:  Paul J. D'Agrosa
Counsel for Respondent:  Shaun J. Mackelprang
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall and Ahrens, JJ., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
This is an appeal from a judgment in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.  Ronald E. Armstrong was found 
guilty in a jury trial of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.202 RSMo 1994 and sentenced to a 
term of ten years in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
We have read the briefs and reviewed the legal file and transcript.  We find no error of law and no jurisprudential 
purpose will be served by an extended written opinion.  Judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.