Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul L. DOBBINS, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 165 S.W.3d 197
Docket Number: No. ED 84522
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul L. DOBBINS, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 165
Pages: 197–198

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Paul L. DOBBINS, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 84522.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
June 21, 2005.
Maleaner Ryna Harvey, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Deborah Daniels, Dora A. Fichter, Co-Counsel, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and BOOKER T. SHAW, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Paul L. Dobbins (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a controlled substance in violation of Section 195.202 RSMo 2000. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not plainly err, State v. Santillan, 1 S.W.3d 572, 578 (Mo.App. E.D.1999), or abuse its discretion, State v. Granado, 148 S.W.3d 309, 311 (Mo.banc2004), in denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence, because the evidence was not obtained as a result of an unlawful seizure. State v. Stacy, 121 S.W.3d 328, 332 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).