Darr v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc.

    816 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. 1991)   Cited 86 times
    In Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Mo. banc 1991), this Court clearly held that an objection or motion to strike is untimely if it comes "too late to give opposing counsel an opportunity to correct any deficiencies in the questions or lay an appropriate foundation for the witness's opinion."

    One of the authorities cited by defendant supports the idea that a proper written request for a continuance does not conclusively bind the trial judge and mandate a continuance. In Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455 (Mo.App. 1986), the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals noted that no proper request for continuance had been made, but "[e]ven if a request for a continuance had been properly made, the trial court would have acted within its discretion in denying it." 723 S.W.2d at 457.

  2. Wolf v. State

    790 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    "Moreover, absent a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court will defer to the determination by the trial court that a defendant's plea was voluntary." Byers v. State, 772 S.W.2d 802, 804 (Mo.App. 1989) citing Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Mo.App. 1986). To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, appellant must demonstrate his trial counsel's performance was deficient in that it was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and the appellant was prejudiced.

  3. State v. Bogue

    788 S.W.2d 772 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    He alleges this denied him the right to a fair trial because the witness could have impeached victim's testimony. The trial court has broad discretion with respect to granting continuances and we will not reverse unless there is an abuse of that discretion. Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Mo.App. 1987); See also State v. Alexander, 675 S.W.2d 431, 432 (Mo.App. 1984). "An appellant must make a very strong showing that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and that prejudice resulted from such denial."

  4. Slaughter v. State

    785 S.W.2d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court in this post-conviction proceeding had the record from the criminal case before it. It also had the opportunity to observe the witnesses who appeared at the evidentiary hearing on appellant's Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion and to exercise its responsibility to assess the credibility of those witnesses. Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Mo.App. 1986); Leigh v. State, 673 S.W.2d 788, 790 (Mo.App. 1984). The trial court determined that appellant's plea of guilty in his criminal case was voluntarily made, and, therefore, that the performance of appellant's counsel in the underlying criminal case was not deficient. No abuse of discretion is shown with respect to that finding.

  5. Byers v. State

    772 S.W.2d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 4 times

    Moreover, absent a clear abuse of discretion, an appellate court will defer to the determination by the trial court that a defendant's plea was voluntary. Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Mo.App. 1986). In addition, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient in that it was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms and that movant was thereby prejudiced.

  6. Malady v. State

    748 S.W.2d 69 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 7 times

    In the absence of compliance with Rule 65.04, there can be no abuse of discretion in the denying of an application for a continuance. Darr v. State, 723 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Mo.App. 1986); Phillips v. State, 639 S.W.2d 270, 275-276[9] (Mo.App. 1982). An even more basic reason justifying the action of the trial court in denying the application for a continuance is found in State v. Rutledge, 317 S.W.2d 365, 367[8] (Mo. 1958).