State v. Rice

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rice

84 S.W.3d 122, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2002 WL 1837810

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 13, 2002

DocketNo. WD 60213

StatusPublished

This text of 84 S.W.3d 122 (State v. Rice) 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. Rice, 84 S.W.3d 122, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2002 WL 1837810 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Gregory Rice of violence against an employee of the department of corrections, § 217.385.1, RSMo 2000. The court sentenced him, as a prior offender, to fifteen years in prison, to be served consecutively to sentences he was already serving. On direct appeal, Mr. Rice claims that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion for a continuance. This court finds that Mr. Rice has failed to make a strong showing that the trial court abused its discretion and prejudice resulted from the denial of his continuance motion, as required by State v. Christeson, 50 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 406, 151 L.Ed.2d 309 (2001). Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Gregory Rice of violence against an employee of the department of corrections, § 217.385.1, RSMo 2000. The court sentenced him, as a prior offender, to fifteen years in prison, to be served consecutively to sentences he was already serving. On direct appeal, Mr. Rice claims that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling his motion for a continuance. This court finds that Mr. Rice has failed to make a strong showing that the trial court abused its discretion and prejudice resulted from the denial of his continuance motion, as required by State v. Christeson, 50 S.W.3d 251, 261 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 406, 151 L.Ed.2d 309 (2001). Since a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 S.W.3d 122, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 1673, 2002 WL 1837810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rice-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack