Case ID: sw3d_48/html/0111-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antonio McCown WRIGHT, Appellant.
    No. ED 77270.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    June 26, 2001.
    Irene C. Karns, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
    Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Sutherland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Antonio McCown Wright, appeals his conviction for forgery in violation of Section 570.090, RSMo 2000. He contends the trial court plainly erred in permitting the prosecutor to ask improper questions during voir dire. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the trial court did not plainly err. An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum opinion setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).