State v. Ledbetter

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ledbetter

907 S.W.2d 805, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766, 1995 WL 621322

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 24, 1995

DocketNo. 67578

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 S.W.2d 805, 1995 Mo. App. LEXIS 1766, 1995 WL 621322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ledbetter-moctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack