claim for plain error in Missouri

2025“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519 , 526 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2025“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” [Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d at 526] (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2024“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995), and Rule 30.20).

2024“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error 2 Defendant and the State both agree that this issue was not preserved for our review and may only be reviewed for plain error. 3 Unless otherwise indicated, all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2024). 2 ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting State v. Brown, 902 S.W.2d 278, 284 (Mo. banc 1995), and Rule 30.20). . . .

2024“The plain language of Rule 30.20 demonstrates that not every allegation of plain error is entitled to review.” State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253, 269 (Mo. banc 2013).

2024“The plain language of Rule 30.20 demonstrates that not every allegation of plain error is entitled to review.” Id. (quoting State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253, 269 (Mo. banc 2013)).

2019"We only will review a claim for plain error if it 'facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that a 'manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice' would result if left uncorrected.'" Coats v. Hickman, 11 S.W.3d 798, 805 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (quoting Brown v. Mercantile Bank, 820 S.W.2d 327, 335 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991)).

2001We will review a claim for plain error only if it “facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that a ‘manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice’ would result if left uncorrected.” Id. (quoting Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d 327, 335 (Mo.App.

2025State v. Shade, 657 S.W.3d 282 , 302 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Rios, 314 S.W.3d 414, 425 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)). 5 All rule references are to I MISSOURI COURT RULES - STATE 2024. 7 Here, Herring admits in his appellate brief to this Court that “[Herring] did not object prior to discharge of the jury out of concern that doing so would result in further findings of guilt resulting from a compromise verdict.” Having admittedly made the strategic decision not to object to what Herring now claims are impermissibly inconsistent verdicts before the jury was discha

2022See Rios, 314 S.W.3d at 425 (finding the defendant waived plain error review where he did not object to, or seek relief from, the polygraph testimony, “opting instead to employ the strategy of converting the [evidence] into an opportunity to highlight [the defendant’s] cooperation with all requests of him made by the police”). 28 However, even if we were to review this claim for plain error, we would not reverse.

2024Points 2, 3 and 4 – Asserting Plain Error Defendant’s remaining three points request plain-error review under Rule 30.20. 3 “Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” State v. Brandolese, 601 S.W.3d 519 , 526 (Mo. banc 2020) (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. 2 See Bradshaw, 411 S.W.3d at 403 (“In reality, [d]efendant is simply attempting to cast his unpreserved claim of variance as a c

2024“The plain language of Rule 30.20 demonstrates that not every allegation of plain error is entitled to review.” Id. (quoting State v. Nathan, 404 S.W.3d 253, 269 (Mo. banc 2013)).

2023“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)).

2023“Plain error review is discretionary, and this Court will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. (quoting State v. Clay, 533 S.W.3d 710, 714 (Mo. banc 2017)). 5 Jackson alleges the trial court “abused its discretion overruling [Jackson]’s motion to dismiss and entering sentence and judgment against him[,]” but then acknowledges “Mr. Jackson’s trial counsel did not renew the motion prior to trial.

2012Under Rule 30.20, plain error is error which is “evident, obvious, and clear.” State v. White, 247 S.W.3d 557, 561 (Mo.App.

2010Id.

2025“Unless manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice is shown, an appellate court should ‘decline to review for plain error under Rule 30.20.’” Id. (quoting State v. Jones, 427 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Mo. banc 2014)). “‘[T]he defendant bears the burden of demonstrating manifest injustice’ entitling him to plain error review.” Id. (quoting State v. Oates, 540 S.W.3d 858, 863 (Mo. banc 2018)).

2024We “will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. at 714 (internal quotation omitted). “[B]eing sentenced to a punishment greater than the maximum sentence for an offense constitutes manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice meriting plain error review.” State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417, 419 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing Rule 30.20; State v. Severe, 307 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Mo. banc 2010)).

2024We “will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. at 714 (internal quotation omitted). “[B]eing sentenced to a punishment greater than the maximum sentence for an offense constitutes manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice meriting plain error review.” State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417, 419 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing Rule 30.20; State v. Severe, 307 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Mo. banc 2010)).

2024We “will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. at 714 (internal quotation omitted). “[B]eing sentenced to a punishment greater than the maximum sentence for an offense constitutes manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice meriting plain error review.” State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417, 419 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing Rule 30.20; State v. Severe, 307 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Mo. banc 2010)).

2024We “will not review a claim for plain error unless the claimed error ‘facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted.’” Id. at 714 (internal quotation omitted). “[B]eing sentenced to a punishment greater than the maximum sentence for an offense constitutes manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice meriting plain error review.” State v. Hardin, 429 S.W.3d 417, 419 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing Rule 30.20; State v. Severe, 307 S.W.3d 640, 642 (Mo. banc 2010)).

2023See Minor, 648 S.W.3d at 731 (quoting Grado, 559 S.W.3d at 899–900). 7 First, Robertson has not shown that the trial court committed error, plain or otherwise, by refraining from interrupting the State’s closing argument.

2022See Proudie, 493 S.W.3d at 13 .

2021See Tramble, 383 S.W.3d at 40 (internal citation omitted).

2020State v. Ianniello, 671 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). 2 All references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2018). 3 Analysis At trial and over Bailey’s objection, the court allowed the jurors to use a transcript of the dash-cam recording of the interaction between Bailey and Officer Nathaniel Dolin (“Officer Dolin”) and Officer Brett Lockwood (“Officer Lockwood”) at the scene and limited its use to only when the video was being played.

2020“Plain error must be evident, obvious, and clear.” State v. Riggs, 520 S.W.3d 788, 794 (Mo.App.

2019State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561, 582 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal citations omitted).

2019“Plain error must be evident, obvious, and clear.” State v. Walter, 479 S.W.3d 118, 131 (Mo. banc 2016).

2019See id. ; see also Clay , 533 S.W.3d at 714 .

2019"We only will review a claim for plain error if it 'facially establishes substantial grounds for believing that a 'manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice' would result if left uncorrected.'" Coats v. Hickman, 11 S.W.3d 798, 805 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) (quoting Brown v. Mercantile Bank, 820 S.W.2d 327, 335 (Mo. App. S.D. 1991)).

2016State v. McKay, 411 S.W.3d 295, 304 (Mo.App.E.D.2013); State v. Brown, 996 S.W.2d 719, 732 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999).

2016See Thurman, 272 S.W.3d at 496 ; Rule 30.20. 10 When reviewing a claim for plain error, we will only grant a defendant relief if we find an error occurred and the error affected the defendant’s rights so substantially that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted.

2016State v. McKay, 411 S.W.3d 295, 304 (Mo.App.E.D.2013); State v. Brown, 996 S.W.2d 719, 732 (Mo.App.W.D. 1999).

2014State v. Baumruk, 280 S.W.3d 600, 607 (Mo. banc 2009).