State v. Mack, 51282
| Decision Date | 27 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 51282,51282 |
| Citation | 725 S.W.2d 78 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Freddie MACK, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis; Thomas F. McGuire, Judge.
Frank R. Fabbri, III, St. Louis, for appellant.
Elizabeth Ann Levin, Assist. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant Freddie Mack appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, for two counts of first degree assault, two counts of first degree robbery, and one count of armed criminal action. Defendant was sentenced to two consecutive terms of imprisonment of thirty years on the assault convictions, two concurrent terms of imprisonment of twenty years on the robbery offenses, and a consecutive term of life imprisonment on the armed criminal action conviction. The Points raised on appeal were not preserved in the trial court for appellate review and would therefore be reviewable only as "plain error" pursuant to Rule 30.20. We find that no manifest injustice nor miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mack v. Caspari
...term of life imprisonment for armed criminal action. Mack's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. See State v. Mack, 725 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1987) (per curiam). first degree robbery, and one count of armed criminal On February 4, 1988, Mack filed a pro se motion for postconviction relie......
-
Marriage of P.K.A., In re, 14579
... ... denied, 450 U.S. 1001, 101 S.Ct. 1709, 68 L.Ed.2d 203 (1981) ... The "state of mind" exception does not allow the child's statements to be admissible for their truth ... ...
-
Mack v. State, 55057
...to two twenty year terms, consecutive to a term of life imprisonment. Movant's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Mack, 725 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). On this appeal movant contends that (1) the trial court erred in refusing to consider movant's amended motion filed more......