Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard BARNES, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2002-04-23
Citations: 77 S.W.3d 652
Docket Number: No. ED 79805
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard BARNES, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 77
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard BARNES, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 79805.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
April 23, 2002.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 28, 2002.
Irene Karns, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO,- for respondent.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J. and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Richard O. Barnes, appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of first-degree trafficking, iri violation of section 195.222 RSMo (1996); two counts of possession of a chemical with intent to create a controlled substance or analogue, in violation of section 195.420 RSMo (1996); and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to use, in violation of section 195.233 RSMo (1996). The trial court found defendant to be a prior offender and sentenced him to a term of life imprisonment on Count I. It further sen tenced him to a term of seven years imprisonment on Counts II and III, and a term of five years imprisonment on Count IV, all to be served concurrently to the sentence imposed on Count I.
No error of law appears and 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 is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).