Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael M. PENNELL, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 397 S.W.3d 539
Docket Number: No. ED 98312
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael M. PENNELL, Appellant.
Judges: Before: LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 397
Pages: 539–540

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael M. PENNELL, Appellant.
No. ED 98312.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division IV.
April 23, 2013.
Alexa Irene Pearson, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for Appellant.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Timothy A. Blackwell, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, P.J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J., and KURT S. ODENWALD, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Michael Pennell ("Pennell") appeals from the judgment entered upon a jury verdict of two counts of distribution, delivery, or sale of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211, RSMo.Cum. Supp. (2012). Pennell presents three points on appeal, arguing first that the trial court abused its discretion in overrul ing his motion for a continuance on the morning of trial. Pennell also claims the trial court erred in the submission of the verdict directors to the jury, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the' claims.of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R.Crim. P. 80.25(b).