State v. Jackson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jackson

964 S.W.2d 245, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 1998 WL 148858

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1998

DocketNo. 72570

StatusPublished

This text of 964 S.W.2d 245 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 964 S.W.2d 245, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 1998 WL 148858 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Malcolm Jackson appeals from a judgment upon his conviction by a jury on two counts of stealing over $150 and one count of stealing a motor vehicle in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a persistent offender to three concurrent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. Jackson asserts the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance to locate absent witnesses.

After having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, we find the claim of error to be [246]*246without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Malcolm Jackson appeals from a judgment upon his conviction by a jury on two counts of stealing over $150 and one count of stealing a motor vehicle in violation of Section 570.030, RSMo 1994. The court sentenced him as a persistent offender to three concurrent terms of twenty years’ imprisonment. Jackson asserts the trial court erred in denying his request for a continuance to locate absent witnesses.

After having reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, we find the claim of error to be [246]*246without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no jurisprudential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

964 S.W.2d 245, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 631, 1998 WL 148858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-moctapp-1998.