State v. Elliott

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Elliott

328 S.W.3d 817, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1804, 2010 WL 5393518

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided December 30, 2010·No. WD 71682·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

William Elliott appeals his conviction following a bench trial of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to deliver or sell, section 195.235, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2009, and sentence of two years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in not dismissing his case for violation of his right to a speedy trial and sentencing him upon his conviction. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

William Elliott appeals his conviction following a bench trial of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to deliver or sell, section 195.235, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2009, and sentence of two years imprisonment. In his sole point on appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in not dismissing his case for violation of his right to a speedy trial and sentencing him upon his conviction. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

State v. Elliott, 328 S.W.3d 817, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1804, 2010 WL 5393518 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

328 S.W.3d 817 (State v. Elliott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related