Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas B. Wolfin, Jr., Appellant.  Thomas B. Wolfin, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-thomas-b-wolfin-jr-appellant-thomas-b-wolf-17109
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17109
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Thomas+B.+Wolfin%2C+Jr.%2C+Appellant.++Thomas+B.+Wolfin%2C+Jr.%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Thomas B. Wolfin, Jr., Appellant.  Thomas B. Wolfin, Jr., Appellant, 
v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Case Number:  Nos. 68534 and 70940
Handdown Date:  08/26/1997
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Ste. Genevieve County, Hon. Stan J. Murphy
Counsel for Appellant:  Kent Denzel
Counsel for Respondent:  Jeremiah W. Nixon and Fernando Bermudez
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Ahrens, P.J., Crandall and Karohl, JJ., concur.
Opinion:

ORDER
Thomas G. Wolfin, Jr., appeals from a judgment of the circuit court finding him guilty of concealing a prohibited 
article in a county jail, Sec. 221.111, RSMo 1994.    He also appeals from a judgment denying him postconviction relief 
under Rule 29.15 following an evidentiary hearing.  Wolfin argues that the court erred by (1) admitting certain evidence, 
(2) denying him effective assistance of counsel, (3) not granting a requested continuance, (4) improperly striking a 
venireperson for cause, (5) sentencing him to cruel and unusual punishment, and (6) assessing costs against him in his 
29.15 action.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion.  However, the parties have been furnished with a 
memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgments of the trial court are affirmed in accordance with Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b).

Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.