State v. Jones

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Jones

256 S.W.3d 209, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2008 WL 2572106

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 2008

DocketWD 67175

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 S.W.3d 209 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 256 S.W.3d 209, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2008 WL 2572106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Jones (“Jones”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of first degree robbery and armed criminal action. Jones complains that the trial court erred in denying a continuance for the purpose of obtaining psychological records bearing on the voluntariness of a confession he gave to the police following the robbery in question. Jones has failed to establish, however, that the trial court action of which he complains resulted in any prejudice. As a formal published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed 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.

Johnny Jones (“Jones”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of first degree robbery and armed criminal action. Jones complains that the trial court erred in denying a continuance for the purpose of obtaining psychological records bearing on the voluntariness of a confession he gave to the police following the robbery in question. Jones has failed to establish, however, that the trial court action of which he complains resulted in any prejudice. As a formal published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasoning of the court, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.W.3d 209, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 891, 2008 WL 2572106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack