STATE v. JACKSON III (2025)

ORDER

Elmer Jackson appeals his convictions for second-degree drug trafficking and possession of a controlled substance and his concurrent incarceration sentences of ten years. In his first point on appeal, Jackson argues methamphetamine evidence should have been excluded because the search of his vehicle was illegal. In his second point on appeal, Jackson argues that heroin and fentanyl evidence should have been excluded because it was the fruit of an illegal search of his car. In his third point on appeal, Jackson argues that the trial court should have granted his request for a mistrial because his right to not incriminate himself was violated when he did not testify and the prosecutor argued that Jackson “sat there and lied to the jury.” Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Per Curiam: