Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James C. COOK, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2017-08-22
Citations: 525 S.W.3d 219
Docket Number: No. ED 103910
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James C. COOK, Appellant.
Judges: Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 525
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James C. COOK, Appellant.
No. ED 103910
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: August 22, 2017
Randall Brachman, 1010 Market Street, Suite 100, Saint Louis, MO. 63101, for appellant.
Christine K. Lesicko, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO. 65102, for respondent.
Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
James C. Cook ("Defendant") appeals from a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree drug trafficking for possession of more than eight grams of cocaine. Defendant raises four points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred and abused its discretion: (1) in denying his motion to dismiss the charges and quash the indictment because the initial complaint was based on a false probable cause statement; (2) in denying his motion for a new trial because the State's closing argument was prejudicial in that it misstated the value of the drugs he possessed; (3) in granting the State's request for a continuance on the day of trial after the jury had already been selected without holding a good cause hearing on the record as required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law, Section 217.450 et seq. RSMo Cum. Supp. 2009, and; (4) in sustaining the State's objection and excluding the affidavit supporting the search warrant as inadmissible hearsay.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
. All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2017), unless otherwise indicated.