Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

231 S.W.3d 278

State v. Knipp

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 29, 2007

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2007-06-29

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2025

7 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2007-06-29

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM.

¶2Darin Knipp (“Defendant”) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Audrain County convicting him on the charge of burglary in the second degree. In his appeal, Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it accepted his guilty plea because the charging instrument omitted the word “knowingly,” thus rendering his guilty plea involuntary and unknowing.

¶3We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not erroneous. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.

¶4We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

/231/sw3d/278 · .json · Public domain