Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter L. LUCKETT, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-04-19
Citations: 491 S.W.3d 309
Docket Number: No. ED 102646
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter L. LUCKETT, Appellant.
Judges: Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 491
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Walter L. LUCKETT, Appellant.
No. ED 102646
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: April 19, 2016
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 8, 2016
Casey A. Taylor, 1000 W. Nifong, Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Dora A.- Fichter, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM
Appellant Walter Luckett ("Luckett") appeals from the judgment of the trial court, following a jury trial, convicting Luckett on one count of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute, one count of possession of marijuana, and one count of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, Luckett was sentenced to a total of seventeen years' imprisonment. On appeal, Luckett contends the trial court clearly erred in overruling his pretrial motion to suppress evidence — namely, cocaine and marijuana — and his objections to the admission of that evidence at trial because the evidence was obtained in violation of his right to be free from an unreasonable search and seizure. Specifically, Luckett argues that law enforcement did not have the required reasonable suspicion to bé-lieve that Luckett was involved in criminal activity or was armed and presently dangerous in order to justify a pat-down search. Luckett maintains that the marijuana discovered as a result of the pat-down search, as well as the marijuana and cocaine subsequently found in the backseat of the patrol 'car, were inadmissib as, fruits of the poisonous tree
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 'his order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).