Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

119 S.W.3d 139

State v. Stiers

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 19, 2003

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2003-08-19

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 2007

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-08-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM

¶2Robert Stiers appeals his conviction after a jury trial of the class C felony of felonious restraint, Section 565.120 RSMo. 2000. Stiers raises five points of error. First, he contends that he was denied due process and equal protection of the law under a plain error standard because the jury verdict form on Count V alleging felonious restraint referred to the charge as false imprisonment. Secondly, he claims that the trial court erred in the admission of photographs depicting a prior uncharged offense allegedly committed by defendant on the same victim in this case. His third claim is that he was denied his rights under the United States and Missouri constitutions because he was not present when the court held its formal jury instruction conference in chambers. His fourth claim of error alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, he claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for felonious restraint.

¶3We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error of law. A written opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no prec-edential or jurisprudential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information *140only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment and sentence is, therefore, affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).

/119/sw3d/139 · .json · Public domain