State v. Belleville
| Decision Date | 20 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 31060,31060 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, (Plaintiff) Respondent, v. Frank D. BELLEVILLE, (Defendant) Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John T. Sluggett III, Clayton, for appellant.
William J. Geekie, Pros. Atty., Robert W. Van Dillen, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
By an information filed in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction the defendant was charged with common assault. On trial to the court he was found guilty, and his punishment was assessed at six months in the city jail. From the judgment and sentence the defendant has appealed.
The defendant has filed no brief, so we look to his motion for a new trial and consider such assignments as are sufficient to present matters for review. We also examine the essential portions of the record. Supreme Court Rules 27.20 and 28.02, V.A.M.R.; State v. Richardson, Mo.Sup., 343 S.W.2d 51; State v. Bryant, Mo.Sup., 319 S.W.2d 635; State v. Richardson, Mo.Sup., 315 S.W.2d 139.
Most of the assignments in the motion for a new trial which are sufficient to present any matter for review relate generally to the refusal of the court to grant a continuance of the case. We therefore set out below all of the record upon this and other points. The case was called for trial on July 5, 1961, and at that time the defendant was represented by Mr. O'Hanlon and the following occurred:
The trial then proceeded.
The state's evidence consisted of the testimony of the complaining witness, who positively identified the defendant as one of two men who had pulled him from his automobile and beat him severely. The police officer who arrested the defendant in the vicinity of the assault also testified. He stated that the defendant admitted being in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anding
...exploited, and the preparations already made, could not have been impaired by the dismissal of the separate charge. State v. Belleville, 362 S.W.2d 77, 80[3, 4] (Mo.App.1962). The denial of the motion for continuance was a proper exercise of discretion. State v. Winston, 627 S.W.2d 915, 917......
-
State v. McClinton
...v. Shapiro, Mo.App., 248 S.W.2d 62; State v. Smith, Mo.App., 268 S.W.2d 48; State v. Williams, Mo.App., 349 S.W.2d 375; State v. Belleville, Mo.App., 362 S.W.2d 77; §§ 546.040, 546.050 and 543.200, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.; and § 22(a), Art. I, of the 1945 Missouri Constitution. The opinion also......
-
State v. Riley
...that the granting or refusing of an application for a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Belleville, Mo.App., 362 S.W.2d 77; State v. White, Mo.App., 313 S.W.2d 47. The action of the trial court with respect to the requested continuance is subject to ......
-
State v. McNail, 8310
...portions of the record listed in Rule 28.08. Rules 27.20, 28.02 and 28.08; State v. Brewer Mo., 338 S.W.2d 863, 865-866; State v. Belleville, Mo.App., 362 S.W.2d 77, 78. On July 14, 1962, at 11:30 P.M., the defendant was observed driving west on Highway 21 in Reynolds County, Missouri, in a......