When the State filed the substitute information, defendant did not object to it as untimely. State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d 748, 750[5] (Mo.App. 1985). Even had he objected, a substitute information filed before the verdict is timely.
Moreover, there is no merit in movant's contention, advanced only in his argument as distinguished from his point, that the information was defective in citing § 558.016 instead of § 557.036. See State v. Stapleton, 661 S.W.2d 620, 622[3] (Mo.App. 1983), and State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d 748, 751[11] (Mo.App. 1985). The judgment is affirmed.
This literally complies with § 558.021.1(1). In State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d 748 (Mo.App. 1985), a movant sought relief upon a basis identical to that asserted by movant in this case. The court denied the relief and said:
When the State filed the substitute information, defendant did not object to it as untimely. State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d 748, 750[5] (Mo.App. 1985). Even had he objected, a substitute information filed before the verdict is timely.
It is axiomatic a defendant on appeal or in a motion for a new trial may not enlarge an objection made at trial, which defendant has obviously undertaken to do here. State v. Singleton, 694 S.W.2d 828, 830[4] (Mo.App. 1985); State v. Robinson, 694 S.W.2d 748, 750[5] (Mo.App. 1985); State v. Cannady, 660 S.W.2d 33, 37[6] (Mo.App. 1983); State v. Comstock, 647 S.W.2d 163, 165[2] (Mo.App. 1983); State v. Byrnes, 619 S.W.2d 791, 793[5] (Mo.App. 1981). The point is denied.