Vaughn v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Vaughn v. State

273 S.W.3d 578, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 15, 2009 WL 69240

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 13, 2009

DocketED 90976

StatusPublished

This text of 273 S.W.3d 578 (Vaughn v. State) 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

Vaughn v. State, 273 S.W.3d 578, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 15, 2009 WL 69240 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darren Vaughn (Movant) appeals from the dismissal of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant challenges his convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000; 1 and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which Movant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues: (1) the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 29.15 under the “escape rule”; (2) the trial court “lacked jurisdiction” because the indictment was defective; (3) the state caused the indictment to be defective by the variance between the jury instruction and the indictment, and; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to question Movant on his post-arrest silence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Darren Vaughn (Movant) appeals from the dismissal of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant challenges his convictions for two counts of first-degree robbery, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000; 1 and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015, for which Movant was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Movant argues: (1) the trial court erred in dismissing his Rule 29.15 under the “escape rule”; (2) the trial court “lacked jurisdiction” because the indictment was defective; (3) the state caused the indictment to be defective by the variance between the jury instruction and the indictment, and; (4) the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the state to question Movant on his post-arrest silence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 S.W.3d 578, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 15, 2009 WL 69240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-state-moctapp-2009.