State v. Franklin

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Franklin

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 4, 2009·No. WD 69663·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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).

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

Pincite

288 S.W.3d 830 (State v. Franklin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related