From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Blue

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Feb 16, 1993
847 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)

Opinion

Nos. 59205, 61809.

February 16, 1993.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, RICHARD J. MEHAN, J.

Emily N. Blood, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael J. Spillane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.


ORDER


Defendant appeals his convictions for murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. Defendant also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. We find the trial court did not plainly err in its failure to exclude a witness the Defendant was unable to interview when the State released the name of said witness to Defendant and no evidence of impropriety by the State was presented. Rule 25.03(A)(1). Therefore, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Further, we find the motion court did not clearly err in its denial of Defendant's Rule 29.15 motion. Therefore, we affirm the motion court pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this case. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal by written summary order pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our decision.


Summaries of

State v. Blue

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Feb 16, 1993
847 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)
Case details for

State v. Blue

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT, v. KEVIN BLUE, APPELLANT. KEVIN BLUE…

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One

Date published: Feb 16, 1993

Citations

847 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993)

Citing Cases

Alexander v. State

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by allowing a witness to testify when the defendant was unable to…