Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburggreen1 sentence2020Zahnd v. Van Amburg specifically reaffirmed that holding, stating that, if a court imposes a sentence in violation of Bazell, “the appropriate remedy is a direct appeal.” 533 S.W.3d 227, 231 (Mo. banc 2017) (emphasis added). 3 While this Court has recognized that the right to raise certain claims on appeal may be waived by a criminal defendant when entering a guilty plea, the record in this case shows that Mr. Russell did not waive his claim that he received an excessive sentence. 4 And Mr. Russell preserved his claim. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Zinna v. Steelegreen1 sentence2015Zinna v. Steele, 301 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Mo. banc 2010), clarified that this exception is no longer properly considered a “jurisdictional” defect; rather, it is merely a sentencing defect. 18 of a statute, which it claims is the only basis for applying the sentencing-defect exception. | 1 | 1 |
Eckhoff v. Stategreen1 sentence2007It is well settled in the law that: “When a plea [of guilty] rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Eckhoff v. State, 201 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Mo.App.2006) (citing North v. State, 878 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Mo.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
North v. Stategreen1 sentence2007It is well settled in the law that: “When a plea [of guilty] rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Eckhoff v. State, 201 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Mo.App.2006) (citing North v. State, 878 S.W.2d 66, 67 (Mo.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Cain v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Cain v. State, 859 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cobbgreen1 sentence1996State v. Cobb, 898 S.W.2d 124, 127 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trevinogreen1 sentence1980See State v. Trevino, 428 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.1968); State v. Clark, 360 S.W.2d 666 (Mo.1962) (admissibility of certified copy of criminal record under Second Offender Act). | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. Dahlgreen2 sentences1951See also Ford v. Dahl, 360 Mo. 437 , 228 S. W. 2d 800, 804 . 1951See also Ford v. Dahl, 360 Mo. 437 , 228 S. W. 2d 800, 804 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McClanahan v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2018This Court in McClanahan specifically held that the trial court's imposition of a sentence in violation of legislative directive was "a violation of the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Sections 27 and 28 of the Kentucky Constitution, and is an abuse of discretion." McClanahan, 308 S.W.3d at 698 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Martez Brown v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Harris
green
1 sentence1983Noting that this charged error was not preserved for review upon failure to raise the issue in the motion for new trial, *63 Harris, supra, this court nevertheless has, for plain error, reviewed this charged error ex gratia. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Clark
neutral
1 sentence1980See State v. Trevino, 428 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.1968); State v. Clark, 360 S.W.2d 666 (Mo.1962) (admissibility of certified copy of criminal record under Second Offender Act). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Hull v. City of St. Louis
neutral
1 sentence1905As opinion evidence is but advisory, the jury is not bound by it. [Hull v. Trustee, 138 Mo. 618 ; Cosgrove v. Leonard, 134 Mo. 425 ; Kansas City v. Street, 36 Mo. App. 666 ; Tel. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
City of Kansas v. Street
neutral
1 sentence1905As opinion evidence is but advisory, the jury is not bound by it. [Hull v. Trustee, 138 Mo. 618 ; Cosgrove v. Leonard, 134 Mo. 425 ; Kansas City v. Street, 36 Mo. App. 666 ; Tel. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.