State v. Cook

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Cook

525 S.W.3d 219, 2017 WL 3597079, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 800

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 2017

DocketNo. ED 103910

StatusPublished

This text of 525 S.W.3d 219 (State v. Cook) 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. Cook, 525 S.W.3d 219, 2017 WL 3597079, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James C. Cook (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree drug trafficking for [220]*220possession of more than eight grams of cocaine. Defendant raises four points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred and abused its discretion: (1) in denying his motion to dismiss the charges and quash the indictment because the initial complaint was based on a false probable cause statement; (2) in denying his motion for a new trial because the State’s closing argument was prejudicial in that it misstated the value of the drugs he possessed; (3) in granting the State’s request for a continuance on the day of trial after the jury had already been selected without holding a good cause hearing on the record as required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law, Section 217.450 et seq. RSMo Cum. Supp. 2009, and; (4) in sustaining the State’s objection and excluding the affidavit supporting the search warrant as inadmissible hearsay.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James C. Cook (“Defendant”) appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree drug trafficking for [220]*220possession of more than eight grams of cocaine. Defendant raises four points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred and abused its discretion: (1) in denying his motion to dismiss the charges and quash the indictment because the initial complaint was based on a false probable cause statement; (2) in denying his motion for a new trial because the State’s closing argument was prejudicial in that it misstated the value of the drugs he possessed; (3) in granting the State’s request for a continuance on the day of trial after the jury had already been selected without holding a good cause hearing on the record as required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law, Section 217.450 et seq. RSMo Cum. Supp. 2009, and; (4) in sustaining the State’s objection and excluding the affidavit supporting the search warrant as inadmissible hearsay.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 S.W.3d 219, 2017 WL 3597079, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 800, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-moctapp-2017.