State v. Blair

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Blair

968 S.W.2d 270, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 1998 WL 296624

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 9, 1998

DocketNo. 73108

StatusPublished

This text of 968 S.W.2d 270 (State v. Blair) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Blair, 968 S.W.2d 270, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 1998 WL 296624 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Darryl Blair appeals the judgment entered after the trial court convicted him of child abuse in violation of Section 568.060, RSMo 1994, and endangering the welfare of a child in violation of Section 568.045, RSMo 1994. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred in trying his case without a jury because the court did not ascertain that his waiver was knowing and voluntary.

We have reviewed the record on appeal. The transcript recites Defendant’s waiver of a jury trial and the legal file contains a written memorandum signed by Defendant indicating a voluntary and knowing waiver. Rule 27.01(b); State v. Butler, 415 S.W.2d 784, 785 (Mo.1967); State v. Turnbough, 604 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo.App. E.D.1980). When waiving the right to a jury trial, Defendant’s counsel indicated it was a matter of trial strategy and it was the desire to have a bench trial due to the nature of the charges. Finally, we note Defendant does not claim he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive a jury trial.

An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Darryl Blair appeals the judgment entered after the trial court convicted him of child abuse in violation of Section 568.060, RSMo 1994, and endangering the welfare of a child in violation of Section 568.045, RSMo 1994. In his sole point on appeal, Defendant claims the trial court plainly erred in trying his case without a jury because the court did not ascertain that his waiver was knowing and voluntary.

We have reviewed the record on appeal. The transcript recites Defendant’s waiver of a jury trial and the legal file contains a written memorandum signed by Defendant indicating a voluntary and knowing waiver. Rule 27.01(b); State v. Butler, 415 S.W.2d 784, 785 (Mo.1967); State v. Turnbough, 604 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo.App. E.D.1980). When waiving the right to a jury trial, Defendant’s counsel indicated it was a matter of trial strategy and it was the desire to have a bench trial due to the nature of the charges. Finally, we note Defendant does not claim he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive a jury trial.

An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

968 S.W.2d 270, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1092, 1998 WL 296624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blair-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack