State v. Morris, KCD
| Decision Date | 30 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 518 S.W.2d 78 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gary Marvin MORRIS, Appellant. 26898. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Willard B. Bunch, Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Robert A. Simons, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before DIXON, C.J., and SHANGLER, WASSERSTROM and TURNAGE, JJ.
On April 24, 1973, appellant was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, for the crimes of burglary, second degree, and stealing. From the evidence presented, the jury could have found that on the night of November 4, 1972, appellant, accompanied by one Michael Corn, broke into a barn belonging to Fred Arbanas and stole three (3) saddles and three (3) bridles. The stolen saddles and bridles were later recovered from a house occupied by appellant. The jury found him guilty and fixed his punishment at two years in the Missouri Department of Corrections for each crime. The trial court duly rendered judgment and imposed sentence. Although appellant was given the additional thirty days to file a motion for new trial, no such motion was ever filed. Nevertheless, this appeal was taken alleging error in the admission of evidence.
'The fact that a motion for a new trial was not filed precludes us from consideration of matters required to be preserved in a motion for new trial.' State v. Malloyd, 394 S.W.2d 405 (Mo.1965); State v. Green, 438 S.W.2d 274 (Mo.1969); State v. Deckard, 354 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.1962). We have reviewed this record proper as respects the matters specified in Rule 28.02, V.A.M.R., and find the indictment, verdict, judgment and sentence sufficient. We add ex gratia that we have also examined this record for plain error affecting substantial rights resulting in manifest injustice and found none. Defendant's brief does not refer to Rule 27.20(c), but erroneously refers to Rule 79.04 relating to 'plain error' in civil cases.
No error of law appears, and an extended opinion in this case would be without precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Rule 84.16.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McClain, 10226
...new trial. This precludes us from considering matters required to be preserved in such a motion. Rules 27.20(a) and 28.02; State v. Morris, 518 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1974). Nevertheless, defendant asseverates the alleged errors enumerated among the points relied on in his brief should be consid......
-
State v. Watson
...new trial that the trial court erred in permitting defendant to represent himself preserved nothing for appellate review. State v. Morris, 518 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1974). In appropriate cases, however, Rule 30.20 authorizes the court to consider plain error even though not preserved. To invoke......
-
State v. Dowdell
...state of the record, failure of appellant to file timely a motion for new trial preserves nothing for appellate review. State v. Morris, 518 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1974). In appropriate cases, however, Rule 27.20(c) authorizes the court to consider plain error even though not preserved. To invok......
-
City of Nevada v. Middleton, s. 28932 and 28931
...for new trial. Rule 27.20. No motion for new trial having been filed, none of these matters is for review on this appeal. State v. Morris, 518 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App.1974). Insofar as the "Illegal Stay of Execution" amounts to an attack upon the judgment of the trial court, that matter may be ur......