State v. Monroe

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Monroe

296 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2009 WL 2223054

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 28, 2009

DocketWD 69415

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 296 S.W.3d 485 (State v. Monroe) 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. Monroe, 296 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2009 WL 2223054 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kriston Monroe, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County after a jury found him guilty of driving while revoked (DWR), section 302.321. 1 Monroe was sentenced to three years as a prior and persistent offender. 2 Monroe asserts that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence, abandoned its neutrality, and failed to intervene sua sponte in closing argument. Upon a review of the claims, this court finds no error. A lengthy opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been provided a memorandum of the *486 court’s reasoning. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp.2006, unless otherwise specified.

2

. Monroe's prior felony convictions were: (1) passing bad checks, 1992; (2) stealing, 1996; (3) driving while revoked, 2001; and (4) forgery, 2003.

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

Order

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Kriston Monroe, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County after a jury found him guilty of driving while revoked (DWR), section 302.321. 1 Monroe was sentenced to three years as a prior and persistent offender. 2 Monroe asserts that the trial court erred in excluding certain evidence, abandoned its neutrality, and failed to intervene sua sponte in closing argument. Upon a review of the claims, this court finds no error. A lengthy opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been provided a memorandum of the *486 court’s reasoning. Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp.2006, unless otherwise specified.

2

. Monroe's prior felony convictions were: (1) passing bad checks, 1992; (2) stealing, 1996; (3) driving while revoked, 2001; and (4) forgery, 2003.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 S.W.3d 485, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1090, 2009 WL 2223054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-monroe-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack