State v. Conklin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Conklin

980 S.W.2d 129, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1818, 1998 WL 726067

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided October 20, 1998·No. No. 72805·Published

Opinion

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals conviction and sentence on charge of tampering with a judicial officer. Section 565.084 RSMo 1994. She was a co-defendant in the trial we reviewed in State v. Cella, et. al., 976 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

Defendant presents four arguments to support a new trial. One of her points is the trial court erred in not recusing himself pursuant to a timely Rule 32.07 motion. The relevant facts on this issue are identical with those considered in Celia. We adopt the conclusions and holding of that opinion.

We reverse and remand for a new trial before another judge.

ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge, concur.

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

KAROHL, Judge.

Defendant appeals conviction and sentence on charge of tampering with a judicial officer. Section 565.084 RSMo 1994. She was a co-defendant in the trial we reviewed in State v. Cella, et. al., 976 S.W.2d 543 (Mo.App.E.D.1998).

Defendant presents four arguments to support a new trial. One of her points is the trial court erred in not recusing himself pursuant to a timely Rule 32.07 motion. The relevant facts on this issue are identical with those considered in Celia. We adopt the conclusions and holding of that opinion.

We reverse and remand for a new trial before another judge.

ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge, concur.

State v. Conklin, 980 S.W.2d 129, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1818, 1998 WL 726067 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

980 S.W.2d 129 (State v. Conklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related