Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

907 S.W.2d 805

State v. Ledbetter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 24, 1995

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1995-10-24

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1996

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Williams · State v. Barnard · State v. Austin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-10-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The 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.

¶2Affirmed.

/907/sw2d/805 · .json · Public domain