State v. Kurt

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Kurt

858 S.W.2d 873, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 1993 WL 308937

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 17, 1993

DocketNo. 63084

StatusPublished

This text of 858 S.W.2d 873 (State v. Kurt) 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. Kurt, 858 S.W.2d 873, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 1993 WL 308937 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals pro se his conviction for driving while license suspended in violation of § 302.321. We first note Defendant’s brief fails to conform to Rule 30.06. He failed to include a “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented ...” Rule 30.06(c). In addition, his points relied on and argument do not conform to Rule 30.06(d) and (e); See, Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978).

We do, however, consider Defendant’s contention the information filed in his case is insufficient to charge him with a violation of § 302.321, because it does not allege he was traveling upon a highway. Defendant was issued a Missouri Uniform Complaint and Summons, which stated the alleged offense occurred at 2736 Winnebago.

Defendant relies on State v. Prock, 759 S.W.2d 854 (Mo.App.1988), and State v. Wren, 622 S.W.2d 31 (Mo.App.1981). However, these cases are inapplicable where Defendant has failed to timely raise the issue pursuant to Rule 24.04(b) or demonstrate actual prejudice. State v. King, 851 S.W.2d 800, 801[1] (Mo.App.1993) (information failing to allege moving violation occurred upon a highway sufficient absent prejudice to the defendant); See also, State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 35[7-9] (Mo. banc 1992) (“the rule that essential statutory elements may not be supplied by intendment or implication has no application where the issue is not timely raised pursuant to Rule 24.04(b).”) The record before us does not indicate Defendant raised the alleged defect in the information before the trial court as required by Rule 24.04(b). Further, Defendant alleges no prejudice in his brief. Therefore, we find no merit to Defendant’s contention.

Judgment 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.

Defendant appeals pro se his conviction for driving while license suspended in violation of § 302.321. We first note Defendant’s brief fails to conform to Rule 30.06. He failed to include a “fair and concise statement of the facts relevant to the questions presented ...” Rule 30.06(c). In addition, his points relied on and argument do not conform to Rule 30.06(d) and (e); See, Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978).

We do, however, consider Defendant’s contention the information filed in his case is insufficient to charge him with a violation of § 302.321, because it does not allege he was traveling upon a highway. Defendant was issued a Missouri Uniform Complaint and Summons, which stated the alleged offense occurred at 2736 Winnebago.

Defendant relies on State v. Prock, 759 S.W.2d 854 (Mo.App.1988), and State v. Wren, 622 S.W.2d 31 (Mo.App.1981). However, these cases are inapplicable where Defendant has failed to timely raise the issue pursuant to Rule 24.04(b) or demonstrate actual prejudice. State v. King, 851 S.W.2d 800, 801[1] (Mo.App.1993) (information failing to allege moving violation occurred upon a highway sufficient absent prejudice to the defendant); See also, State v. Parkhurst, 845 S.W.2d 31, 35[7-9] (Mo. banc 1992) (“the rule that essential statutory elements may not be supplied by intendment or implication has no application where the issue is not timely raised pursuant to Rule 24.04(b).”) The record before us does not indicate Defendant raised the alleged defect in the information before the trial court as required by Rule 24.04(b). Further, Defendant alleges no prejudice in his brief. Therefore, we find no merit to Defendant’s contention.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.-25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

858 S.W.2d 873, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 1273, 1993 WL 308937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kurt-moctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack