State v. Robinson

5 Citing cases

  1. Jones v. Jerrison

    20 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 1994)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that a "habeas petitioner must have 'fairly presented' to the state courts the 'substance' of his federal habeas corpus claim," meaning that "the petitioner must present the same facts and legal theories to the state court that he later presents to the federal courts."

    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.

  2. Shive v. State

    771 S.W.2d 381 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)

    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.

  3. Anglin v. State

    759 S.W.2d 375 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 3 times

    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:

  4. State v. Jones

    738 S.W.2d 920 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  5. State v. Chance

    719 S.W.2d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    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.