Legal Opinion

State v. Penn

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided August 23, 2005No. ED 84686PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

Stanley D. Penn (hereinafter, “Defendant”) appeals from the judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of distribution of a controlled substance, Section 195.211 RSMo (2000) 1 , and sale of a controlled substance, Section 195.211. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two concurrent six year terms of imprisonment. Defendant raises two points on appeal, claiming his right not to testify was violated and the trial court’s failure to act sua sponte resulted in manifest injustice.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. An extended opinion would have no…

3Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Purcell v. JEROME L. HOWE, INC.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2005

4Cited by3 opinions

  1. Penn v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. Purcell v. JEROME L. HOWE, INC.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Penn v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API