State v. HARTISON

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. HARTISON

278 S.W.3d 712, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1882, 2009 WL 791493

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 24, 2009

DocketED 91178

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 S.W.3d 712 (State v. HARTISON) 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. HARTISON, 278 S.W.3d 712, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1882, 2009 WL 791493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Purcell Hartison (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for second-degree murder under Section 565.021, RSMo 2000, second-degree robbery under Section 569.080, RSMo 2000, second-degree domestic assault under Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action under Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. Defendant alleges the trial court committed plain error in 1) permitting the State to cross-examine Defendant on the use of Defendant’s alias; and in 2) imposing a sentence that was motivated by judicial bias and designed to punish Defendant for asserting his constitutional right to plead not guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Purcell Hartison (“Defendant”) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for second-degree murder under Section 565.021, RSMo 2000, second-degree robbery under Section 569.080, RSMo 2000, second-degree domestic assault under Section 565.073, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action under Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. Defendant alleges the trial court committed plain error in 1) permitting the State to cross-examine Defendant on the use of Defendant’s alias; and in 2) imposing a sentence that was motivated by judicial bias and designed to punish Defendant for asserting his constitutional right to plead not guilty.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 S.W.3d 712, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1882, 2009 WL 791493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hartison-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack