Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John SOTOFALCON, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2004-03-02
Citations: 128 S.W.3d 627
Docket Number: No. ED 82668
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John SOTOFALCON, Appellant.
Judges: Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 128
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. John SOTOFALCON, Appellant.
No. ED 82668.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 2, 2004.
Scott Thompson, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Patrick T. Morgan, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before BOOKER T. SHAW, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, J., PATRICIA L. COHEN, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
John Sotofalcon ("Sotofalcon") appeals from the trial court's judgment entered upon his convictions by a jury in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City of robbery in the first degree, Section 569.020, RSMo 2000, and armed criminal action, Section 571.015, RSMo 2000. The trial court sentenced Sotofalcon to a ten-year term of imprisonment for robbery in the first degree and a concurrent three-year term of imprisonment for the armed criminal action.
In his only point on appeal, Sotofalcon argues the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objection to defense counsel's voir dire question asking whether it was possible for an innocent person to be prosecuted. Sotofalcon argues that the trial court's curtailment of defense counsel's voir dire violated his due process rights to a fair trial before a fair and impartial jury.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no prece-dential value. Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).