State v. Finley

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Finley

136 S.W.3d 823, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 850, 2004 WL 1317872

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 15, 2004

DocketED 82852

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 136 S.W.3d 823 (State v. Finley) 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. Finley, 136 S.W.3d 823, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 850, 2004 WL 1317872 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Tommy Finley, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for two counts of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1996, and one count of sexual assault, Section 566.040 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1996. In his sole point on appeal, the defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss brought pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 RSMo. The defendant contends State violated the anti-shuttling provision of the Agreement when the State secured his presence and transferred him to the St. Louis County Department of Justice and then returned him to federal custody, without bringing the state cause to trial. The defendant seeks to have his convictions reversed, and the charges dismissed with prejudice, as directed by Section 217.490, art. TV(5).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law.

We affirm the 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.

The defendant, Tommy Finley, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury for two counts of possession of a controlled substance, Section 195.202 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1996, and one count of sexual assault, Section 566.040 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1996. In his sole point on appeal, the defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss brought pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, Section 217.490 RSMo. The defendant contends State violated the anti-shuttling provision of the Agreement when the State secured his presence and transferred him to the St. Louis County Department of Justice and then returned him to federal custody, without bringing the state cause to trial. The defendant seeks to have his convictions reversed, and the charges dismissed with prejudice, as directed by Section 217.490, art. TV(5).

We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no error. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 S.W.3d 823, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 850, 2004 WL 1317872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-finley-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack