State v. Green

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Green

173 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1470, 2005 WL 2520325

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 11, 2005

DocketED 84916

StatusPublished

This text of 173 S.W.3d 383 (State v. Green) 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. Green, 173 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1470, 2005 WL 2520325 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Reginald Green (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.303 RSMo (2000), driving while his license was suspended or revoked, Section 302.321 RSMo (2000), and endangering the welfare of a child, Section 568.050 RSMo (2000). Defendant was found to be a prior and persistent felony offender and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant raises three points on appeal claiming the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to proffer an instruction to the jury based upon duress; (2) failing to strike sua sponte one member of the venirepanel; and (3) failing to intervene sua sponte *384 during the State’s examination of Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed 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.

Reginald Green (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.303 RSMo (2000), driving while his license was suspended or revoked, Section 302.321 RSMo (2000), and endangering the welfare of a child, Section 568.050 RSMo (2000). Defendant was found to be a prior and persistent felony offender and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. Defendant raises three points on appeal claiming the trial court erred in: (1) refusing to proffer an instruction to the jury based upon duress; (2) failing to strike sua sponte one member of the venirepanel; and (3) failing to intervene sua sponte *384 during the State’s examination of Defendant.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

173 S.W.3d 383, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1470, 2005 WL 2520325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-green-moctapp-2005.