Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Paul POTTEBAUM, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-11-24
Citations: 297 S.W.3d 664
Docket Number: No. ED 92276
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Paul POTTEBAUM, Appellant.
Judges: Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 297
Pages: 664–664

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas Paul POTTEBAUM, Appellant.
No. ED 92276.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Nov. 24, 2009.
Stephen K. Paulus, Cuba, MO, for Appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, John W. Grant-ham, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before KURT S. ODENWALD, P.J., GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J., and ROY L. RICHTER, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Pottebaum (hereinafter, "Appellant") appeals from the trial court's judgment after a jury convicted him of one count of felony receiving stolen property, Section 570.080 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2005). Appellant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Appellant raises two points on appeal. First, Appellant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting seized evidence because the seizure was unlawful, and as such, the evidence seized was fruit of the poisonous tree. Second, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcript on appeal and find no error of law. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion, only for the use of the parties, setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).