State v. Rayford

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rayford

169 S.W.3d 549, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1215, 2005 WL 1946909

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 16, 2005

DocketED 85167

StatusPublished

This text of 169 S.W.3d 549 (State v. Rayford) 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. Rayford, 169 S.W.3d 549, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1215, 2005 WL 1946909 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, David L. Rayford, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for stealing third offense, Section 570.040.1 RSMo.2000. The defendant alleges the trial court plainly erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask certain questions during voir dire. The defendant’s claim does not facially establish substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted and, therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the defendant’s unpre-served claim for plain error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment 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.

The defendant, David L. Rayford, appeals the judgment entered upon his conviction for stealing third offense, Section 570.040.1 RSMo.2000. The defendant alleges the trial court plainly erred in allowing the prosecutor to ask certain questions during voir dire. The defendant’s claim does not facially establish substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice has resulted and, therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the defendant’s unpre-served claim for plain error. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties, however, have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.W.3d 549, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1215, 2005 WL 1946909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rayford-moctapp-2005.