7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2021 1 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 v. Roggenbuckgreen2 sentences2021In the context of an unpreserved double jeopardy claim, we “will conduct plain error review of an unpreserved double jeopardy claim if the alleged double jeopardy violation is determinable from the face of the record.” State v. Roggenbuck, 387 S.W.3d 376, 381 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2014We will conduct plain error review *793 of an unpreserved double jeopardy claim if the alleged double jeopardy violation is “determinable from the face of the record.” State v. Roggenbuck, 387 S.W.3d 376, 380-81 (Mo. banc 2012). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Libertygreen2 sentences2012Even though Roggenbuck did not preserve his double jeopardy argument, this Court will conduct plain eiTor review of an unpreserved double jeopardy claim if the alleged double jeopardy violation is “determinable from the face of the record.” State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. banc 2012). 2012To establish plain error, Roggenbuek bears the burden of demonstrating that an error so substantially affected his rights that a “manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2009We will review an unpreserved double jeopardy claim for plain error when we “ ‘can determine from the face of the record that the court had no power to enter the conviction.’ ” State v. Johnson, 245 S.W.3d 288, 293 (Mo.App.2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2003State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Mo.App. *876 W.D.1999) (citing State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen1 sentence2003State v. Dunn, 7 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Mo.App. *876 W.D.1999) (citing State v. Elliott, 987 S.W.2d 418, 421 (Mo.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Carl
green
1 sentence2021“If [] we conclude that we have passed this threshold, we may proceed to review the claim under a two-step process pursuant to Rule 30.20.” Carl, 389 S.W.3d at 287 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Missouri v. Ralph Alexander
green
2 sentences2019“Rule 30.20 grants this Court authority to consider ‘plain errors’ by a trial court affecting a party’s substantial rights.” Id. (reviewing an appellant’s unpreserved double jeopardy claim for plain error). 2019“Under plain error review, we will only grant a defendant relief if we find an error occurred, which affected his rights so substantially that a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.