State v. Hall

54 S.W.3d 728, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2001 WL 1085366
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Hall. Read the opinion of the Court — 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1386
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 18, 2001·No. No. ED 78688·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

James E. Hall (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of distribution, delivery or sale of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in denying his motion for continuance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for continuance. State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 464 (Mo. banc 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

State v. Hall, 54 S.W.3d 728, 2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 1594, 2001 WL 1085366 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

54 S.W.3d 728 (State v. Hall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Middleton
995 S.W.2d 443 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1999)