State v. Henderson

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sleeth

    No. SD35474 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Failure to accurately record Sleeth's convictions was a clerical error correctable nunc pro tunc for which remand is appropriate. State v. Henderson, 468 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo.App. 2015). Conclusion

  2. State v. McClurg

    543 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    "Failure to accurately record [Defendant]'s conviction was a clerical error correctable nunc pro tunc. " State v. Henderson , 468 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015). Remand is the appropriate remedy.

  3. State v. Salmon

    563 S.W.3d 725 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 8 times

    "[I]t is well understood that parties should not charge error they invited, or complain that a court did what they asked ..." State v. Henderson , 468 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015). It is clear from the record that Salmon invited a trial separate from Ashcraft. Salmon's counsel told the court he could not be ready to try Salmon's case with Ashcraft in May, and did not object to Ashcraft being tried in May. "No criminal trial or judgment should be affected, in any manner, by an error committed at the instance of the defendant."

  4. State v. Salmon

    No. ED104696 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 30, 2018)

    "[I]t is well understood that parties should not charge error they invited, or complain that a court did what they asked. . ." State v. Henderson, 468 S.W.3d 422, 425 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015). It is clear from the record that Salmon invited a trial separate from Ashcraft. Salmon's counsel told the court he could not be ready to try Salmon's case with Ashcraft in May, and did not object to Ashcraft being tried in May. "No criminal trial or judgment should be affected, in any manner, by an error committed at the instance of the defendant."

  5. State v. Crocker

    479 S.W.3d 174 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Finding the court did not plainly err in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance because it correctly found there was no discovery violation since the State provided the information to the defense as soon as it became available to the State and the trial court provided a sufficient remedy for the State’s late disclosure

    Id. (quoting Roper, 136 S.W.3d at 900). In an attempt to avoid this conclusion, Defendant cites State v. Henderson, 468 S.W.3d 422 (Mo.App.S.D.2015), in support of his argument that the State waived compliance with the time limits of Rule 29.11(b) when the prosecutor stated he had no objection to the trial court's consideration of Defendant's untimely motion. However, Henderson is factually distinguishable from the present case.