State v. NOLE
348 S.W.3d 146, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2011 WL 4356214
Opinion
ORDER
Arlie David Nole appeals from his conviction of one count of maintaining a public nuisance. He contends the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a continuance after the State filed a substitute information, which eliminated an additional charge of maintaining a public nuisance, on the day of trial. For reasons explained in a Memorandum provided to the parties, we find no error and affirm the conviction.
AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. NOLE, 348 S.W.3d 146, 2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1217, 2011 WL 4356214 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
348 S.W.3d 146 (State v. NOLE) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hughes v. State
348 S.W.3d 146 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2011)