State v. Alexander

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Alexander

320 S.W.3d 241, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1229, 2010 WL 3553867

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 2010

DocketED 93754

StatusPublished

This text of 320 S.W.3d 241 (State v. Alexander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Alexander, 320 S.W.3d 241, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1229, 2010 WL 3553867 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Alexander (Alexander) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count of class C felony second degree domestic assault, in violation of Section 565.073. Alexander argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance, by not ruling on his request to waive assistance of counsel, and by admitting evidence of his prior uncharged misconduct. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that Alexander is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the *242 parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Alexander (Alexander) appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a jury trial, convicting him of one count of class C felony second degree domestic assault, in violation of Section 565.073. Alexander argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a continuance, by not ruling on his request to waive assistance of counsel, and by admitting evidence of his prior uncharged misconduct. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that Alexander is entitled to no relief on appeal. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the *242 parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 S.W.3d 241, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1229, 2010 WL 3553867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-alexander-moctapp-2010.