State v. Dye

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Dye

540 S.W.3d 891

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105053

StatusPublished

This text of 540 S.W.3d 891 (State v. Dye) 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. Dye, 540 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dustin W. Dye (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of the class B felony of abuse of a child, Section 568.060 RSMo Supp. 2013, and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant requests plain error review for his unpreserved claim of instructional error. For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, Appellant must demonstrate the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury as to cause manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Baker, 103 S.W.3d 711, 723 (Mo. banc 2003). Appellant has failed to do so. This is also not a multiple incidents case as presented in State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

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

PER CURIAM.

Dustin W. Dye (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict convicting him of the class B felony of abuse of a child, Section 568.060 RSMo Supp. 2013, and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment. Appellant requests plain error review for his unpreserved claim of instructional error. For instructional error to rise to the level of plain error, Appellant must demonstrate the trial court so misdirected or failed to instruct the jury as to cause manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. State v. Baker, 103 S.W.3d 711, 723 (Mo. banc 2003). Appellant has failed to do so. This is also not a multiple incidents case as presented in State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the decision pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

540 S.W.3d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dye-moctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack