State v. Kitchen

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kitchen

499 S.W.2d 572, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 4, 1973

DocketNo. KCD 26472

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 499 S.W.2d 572 (State v. Kitchen) 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. Kitchen, 499 S.W.2d 572, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After trial in Division 3 of the Circuit Court, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, on a charge of first degree robbery, the jury found defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years. Defendant had taken the stand and his testimony confesses every element of the offense. As stated by his counsel in closing argument: “This really amounts to a plea of guilty to a jury.”

Defendant’s counsel in that closing jury argument also stated that the jury was “the court of last resort to this young man” because “[tjhere will be no appeal. * * * An appeal would be frivolous.” Notwithstanding that statement, defendant has now appealed to this Court. The grounds assigned as error are that the trial court admitted in evidence and permitted the State to display weapons which were not alleged to have been used by the defendant, but which had been used in the course of the robbery by defendant’s confederates.

No error of law appears in those respects. State v. Romprey, 339 S.W.2d 746 (Mo. banc 1960); Garton v. State, 454 S. W.2d 522 (Mo. 1970); State v. Thompson, 299 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. 1957); State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276, 182 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. 1944). An extended opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and the judgment is therefore affirmed under the provisions of Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R.

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

PER CURIAM.

After trial in Division 3 of the Circuit Court, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, on a charge of first degree robbery, the jury found defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at ten years. Defendant had taken the stand and his testimony confesses every element of the offense. As stated by his counsel in closing argument: “This really amounts to a plea of guilty to a jury.”

Defendant’s counsel in that closing jury argument also stated that the jury was “the court of last resort to this young man” because “[tjhere will be no appeal. * * * An appeal would be frivolous.” Notwithstanding that statement, defendant has now appealed to this Court. The grounds assigned as error are that the trial court admitted in evidence and permitted the State to display weapons which were not alleged to have been used by the defendant, but which had been used in the course of the robbery by defendant’s confederates.

No error of law appears in those respects. State v. Romprey, 339 S.W.2d 746 (Mo. banc 1960); Garton v. State, 454 S. W.2d 522 (Mo. 1970); State v. Thompson, 299 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. 1957); State v. Wynne, 353 Mo. 276, 182 S.W.2d 294 (Mo. 1944). An extended opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and the judgment is therefore affirmed under the provisions of Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M.R.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

499 S.W.2d 572, 1973 Mo. App. LEXIS 1406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kitchen-moctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack