State v. Ledbetter

907 S.W.2d 805, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766, 1995 WL 621322
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 24, 1995·No. No. 67578·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The two issues contested on defendant Ledbetter’s direct appeal involve consecutive sentences and denial of probation after guilty pleas on misdemeanor charges of driving while intoxicated and driving while revoked. Both are without legal merit. A recommendation of the Probation and Parole Board is, at most, advisory. The use of a pre-sentence investigation is discretionary, not mandatory. State v. Barnard, 678 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Mo.App.1984). Moreover, granting or denying probation are matters within the absolute discretion of the trial court and are not subject to appellate review. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); State v. Austin, 620 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1981). A decision to impose consecutive one year jail sentences on two charges is within the discretion of the trial court. See State v. Williamson, 836 S.W.2d 490, 500 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). We find no abuse.

Affirmed.

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

State v. Ledbetter, 907 S.W.2d 805, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766, 1995 WL 621322 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

907 S.W.2d 805 (State v. Ledbetter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Carrillo
935 S.W.2d 328 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1996)