Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 S.W.3d 728

State v. Hall

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided September 18, 2001

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2001-09-18

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2011

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Middleton

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-09-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2James E. Hall (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of distribution, delivery or sale of a controlled substance. Defendant alleges trial court error in denying his motion for continuance. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for continuance. State v. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d 443, 464 (Mo. banc 1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only.

¶3We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

/54/sw3d/728 · .json · Public domain