State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Desmond Harris, Appellant.

Point II – Sentencing In Point II, Harris asserts that the trial court plainly erred in considering at sentencing his prior charges. Harris argues that because no evidence of the prior charges was presented, the trial court could not have determined by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed those offenses, and that because the trial court based its decision on that consideration, manifest injustice occurred. We agree. A. Standard of Review Harris acknowledges that he did not preserve this issue, but requests we review this claim under Rule 30.20,1 which gives us the discretion to…