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

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent v. Darrell Green, 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-darrell-green-appellant-16687
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=16687
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+v.+Darrell+Green%2C+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)

---
## 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. Darrell Green, Appellant
Case Number:  No. 70866
Handdown Date:  05/13/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Floyd McBride
Counsel for Appellant: 
Counsel for Respondent: 
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  Per Curiam
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Before Dowd, Jr., P.J., Reinhard and Gaertner, JJ.
Opinion:

O R D E R 
Appellant, Darrell Green ("defendant"), appeals the judgment of conviction entered by the Circuit Court 
of the City of St. Louis after a jury found him guilty of sale of a controlled substance, RSMo Section 195.211 
(1994).  We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by 
substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the 
law.  As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to 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.