From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Turner

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Dec 10, 2019
590 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)

Opinion

No. ED 107480

12-10-2019

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Demall J. TURNER, Appellant.

FOR APPELLANT, Nancy A. McKerrow, Missouri Public Defender, 1400 Forum Boulevard, Suite 1C, #203, Columbia, Missouri 65203. FOR RESPONDENT, Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.


FOR APPELLANT, Nancy A. McKerrow, Missouri Public Defender, 1400 Forum Boulevard, Suite 1C, #203, Columbia, Missouri 65203.

FOR RESPONDENT, Richard A. Starnes, Assistant Attorney General, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Kurt S. Odenwald, J. and Lisa P. Page, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

Demall Jermaine Turner ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court’s judgment following a jury verdict of guilty on one count of second-degree domestic assault and one count of third-degree domestic assault. On appeal, Appellant raises two points. In his first point, Appellant contends the trial court plainly erred in classifying him as a prior offender because the State failed to plead all essential facts warranting that finding in the Indictment and he was deprived the chance of receiving a lesser sentence from the jury. In his second point, Appellant maintains the trial court plainly erred in not sua sponte prohibiting the State from characterizing its evidence as "uncontroverted" and "uncontradicted" during its closing argument, as doing so constituted a direct reference to his failure to testify in violation of his right against self-incrimination.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court did not plainly err in classifying Appellant as a prior offender or in not sua sponte prohibiting the State from characterizing its evidence as "uncontroverted" and "uncontradicted" during its closing argument. A written opinion would have no precedential value and would serve no jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 84.16(b)(5) (2018).


Summaries of

State v. Turner

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Dec 10, 2019
590 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)
Case details for

State v. Turner

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Demall J. TURNER, Appellant.

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Date published: Dec 10, 2019

Citations

590 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)