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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Corey Love, 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-respondent-v-corey-love-appellant-13509
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=13509
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+Respondent%2C+v.+Corey+Love%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=28&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: 28; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: felony)

---
## 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, Respondent, v. Corey Love, Appellant.
Case Number:  73463
Handdown Date:  09/15/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Kenneth M. Weinstock
Counsel for Appellant:  Rosalynn Koch
Counsel for Respondent:  Cheryl A. Caponegro
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Pudlowski, P.J., Crandall, Jr., and Ahrens, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
                  ORDER
Defendant was charged by indictment with violating the class A felony of trafficking in the second degree, section 
195.223 RSMo, 1994, and violating the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, section 195.202.  A jury 
convicted defendant on both counts, and he was sentenced by the court to a prison term of twelve years for trafficking and 
fined $500.00 for possession.  Defendant appeals from the judgments on both convictions.
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 opinion for 
their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court 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.