State v. Mann, ED 95205.
| Decision Date | 26 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 95205.,ED 95205. |
| Citation | 347 S.W.3d 615 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent,v.Brian MANN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Supreme Court Denied Aug. 29, 2011.
Application for Transfer Denied
Oct. 4, 2011.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Thomas C. Grady, Judge.Timothy J. Forneris, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.Before GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, and PATRICIA L. COHEN, JJ.
Brian Mann (Defendant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of first-degree assault, one count of first-degree robbery, and four counts of armed criminal action. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and admitting identification evidence from an eyewitness, Vidyasagar Gado; and abused its discretion in: (2) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding the lack of the victims' blood and DNA on Defendant's pants and shoes; (3) precluding Defendant from introducing evidence regarding Timothy Boykins; and (4) admitting evidence of Senobia Cross's oral statement to the prosecutor prior to trial that Defendant was wearing the same camouflage jacket as the shooter in the surveillance video.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the trial court did not either err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress or abuse its discretion in precluding Defendant from introducing Mr. Gado's identification evidence and evidence of Mr. Boykins, and admitting evidence of Ms. Cross's oral statement to the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mann v. Griffith
...twenty-year sentences.Doc. 6-7 at 2-3. Mann appealed his convictions to the Missouri Court of Appeals, which affirmed. State v. Mann, 347 S.W.3d 615 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Mann appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, but the Court denied transfer. Doc. 1, 11. Mann filed a Missouri Rule 29.15......
-
Mann v. State
...of parole, and three twenty-year sentences. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal, State v. Mann, 347 S.W.3d 615 (Mo.App.E.D.2011), and entered its mandate on October 17, 2011.Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion ......
- Norman v. Lehman, ED 95661.