State v. Edwards

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Edwards

62 S.W.3d 101, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2079, 2001 WL 1490536

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 27, 2001

DocketNo. WD 59377

StatusPublished

This text of 62 S.W.3d 101 (State v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 62 S.W.3d 101, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2079, 2001 WL 1490536 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Charles Edwards guilty of the class A felony of distribution, delivery, and sale of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211, RSMo 2000. The court sentenced Mr. Edwards, as a prior and persistent drug offender, to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, Mr. Edwards claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the indictment because his rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law were violated. This court finds that Mr. Edwards was brought to trial within the statutorily-mandated time frame. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

Mr. Edwards’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Charles Edwards guilty of the class A felony of distribution, delivery, and sale of a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211, RSMo 2000. The court sentenced Mr. Edwards, as a prior and persistent drug offender, to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, Mr. Edwards claims that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss the indictment because his rights under the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law were violated. This court finds that Mr. Edwards was brought to trial within the statutorily-mandated time frame. Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

Mr. Edwards’ conviction and sentence are affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 S.W.3d 101, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 2079, 2001 WL 1490536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edwards-moctapp-2001.