State v. Stevenson

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Stevenson

573 S.W.3d 761

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 30, 2019

DocketNo. ED 106498

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 573 S.W.3d 761 (State v. Stevenson) 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. Stevenson, 573 S.W.3d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Darwin D. Stevenson ("Stevenson") appeals the trial court's judgment following a jury trial convicting him of first-degree and third-degree assault. In his sole point on appeal, Stevenson argues the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for a continuance because the denial deprived trial counsel of adequate time to investigate Stevenson's charges, interview witnesses, prepare a defense, and develop an attorney-client relationship with Stevenson.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

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

PER CURIAM

Darwin D. Stevenson ("Stevenson") appeals the trial court's judgment following a jury trial convicting him of first-degree and third-degree assault. In his sole point on appeal, Stevenson argues the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial motion for a continuance because the denial deprived trial counsel of adequate time to investigate Stevenson's charges, interview witnesses, prepare a defense, and develop an attorney-client relationship with Stevenson.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 S.W.3d 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevenson-moctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack