State v. Washington, s. 60506
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | CRIST; AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD |
| Citation | 846 S.W.2d 794 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Terry WASHINGTON, Appellant. Terry WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | Nos. 60506,61837,s. 60506 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1993 |
Page 794
v.
Terry WASHINGTON, Appellant.
Terry WASHINGTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Eastern District,
Division One.
John A. Klosterman, S. Paige Canfield, Marilynn Rydlund, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
CRIST, Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction for two counts of stealing a motor vehicle and the subsequent denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. On December 29, 1989, Evelyn Williams loaned her car to her brother, Rickey Gipson. On that day, Gipson saw Defendant at the White Castle parking lot at Kingshighway and King Drive. Gipson agreed to take Defendant to cash his paycheck. On the way back to the White Castle, Gipson stopped at a drug store to pick up some cigarettes, leaving the keys in the car with Defendant. When Gipson exited the store, the car and Defendant were gone. Gipson reported the car, a 1982 Nissan Maxima, stolen.
The following day, December 30, 1989, St. Louis City Police Officer Michael Marks was traveling west on Interstate 70 when he observed a Nissan Maxima and Lincoln Town Car parked on the right shoulder near the Florissant exit ramp. Defendant and another man were picking at the Lincoln's trunk. Marks called 911 and returned to the scene to see a third car pull
Page 795
up driven by Leon Mann. Mann explained he was there to help his brother who owned the Lincoln and had run out of gas, but that his brother was not present. Marks then attempted to arrest Defendant and the other man. The other man fled from the scene, but Marks was able to arrest Defendant with Mann's help. The Nissan at the scene was the one taken from Gipson the previous day.Defendant was charged with two counts of stealing a motor vehicle. On June 12, 1991, the jury convicted Defendant of both counts. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to ten years on each count with the sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant appealed. He also filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. We have consolidated both appeals.
Defendant first argues the prosecutor made improper arguments during closing which personalized the crime to the jury. Defendant failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Strughold
...by arousing the personal fears of the jury members and speculating about future crimes defendant may commit. See State v. Washington, 846 S.W.2d 794, 795 "An argument is not 'personalized' where it does not suggest a personal danger to the jurors or their families if the defendant were to b......
-
State v. Petty
...not included in his motion for new trial, and therefore, were not preserved for appellate review. Rule 29.11(d). State v. Washington, 846 S.W.2d 794, 795 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). These arguments may be considered only under the plain error standard. Rule 29.12(b); Rule 30.20. Defendant bears the......
-
State v. Shields, s. 61916
...in the world matter. Defendant made no objection to these remarks at trial; therefore, we review only for plain error. State v. Washington, 846 S.W.2d 794 (Mo.App.1993). Under the plain error standard, relief is granted only where there is a strong showing of manifest injustice or a miscarr......
-
State v. Mayo, s. 66860
...not included in his motion for new trial, and therefore, was not preserved for appellate review. Rule 29.11(d). State v. Washington, 846 S.W.2d 794, 795 (Mo.App. E.D.1993). Accordingly, defendant's complaint about the prosecutor's closing argument will be considered under the plain error st......