Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

356 S.W.3d 880

Docket No. ED 96298.

State v. WHITH

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. DeWayne WHITE, Defendant/Appellant.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided January 17, 2012.

This page is marked noindex.

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 2012-01-17

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2013

1 state decisions

Relies on State v. Benedict

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2012-01-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Shaun J. Mackelprang, John W. Grantham, Jefferson City, MO, for Plaintiff/Respondent.

¶2Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, MO, for Defendant/Appellant.

¶3Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., MARY K. HOFF, J., and SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J.

¶4

ORDER

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6DeWayne White (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. Section 566.062;[1] first-degree child molestation, Section 566.067; first-degree child endangerment, Section 568.045; and two counts of furnishing pornography to a minor. Section 573.040. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial. State v. Benedict,319 S.W.3d 483, 487 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).

NOTES

¶7[1] All statutory citations are to RSMo 2006, unless otherwise indicated.

/356/sw3d/880 · .json · Public domain