State v. Franklin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Franklin

288 S.W.3d 830, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2009 WL 2382367

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 4, 2009

DocketWD 69663

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 288 S.W.3d 830 (State v. Franklin) 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. Franklin, 288 S.W.3d 830, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2009 WL 2382367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert Franklin appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, section 195.211, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008, and sentence as a prior and persistent drug offender to twenty-two years imprisonment. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson objection to the State’s peremptory strike of a venireman, insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction, and the trial court plainly erred in admitting evidence that his eight-month-old daughter was in the back seat of his vehicle during the police pursuit. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Robert Franklin appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, section 195.211, RSMo Cum.Supp.2008, and sentence as a prior and persistent drug offender to twenty-two years imprisonment. He contends that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson objection to the State’s peremptory strike of a venireman, insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction, and the trial court plainly erred in admitting evidence that his eight-month-old daughter was in the back seat of his vehicle during the police pursuit. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 S.W.3d 830, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1128, 2009 WL 2382367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franklin-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack