Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin MOORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-09-04
Citations: 60 S.W.3d 638
Docket Number: No. ED 77901
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 60
Pages: 638–638

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kevin MOORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. ED 77901.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Sept. 4, 2001.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 31, 2001.
Application for Transfer Denied Dec. 18, 2001.
Emmett D. Queener, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, P.J., LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Kevin Moore, appeals the judgment entered upon his convictions for kidnapping, Section 558.011 RSMo. (2000), four counts of forcible sodomy, Section 566.060., attempted forcible rape, Section 564.011, and forcible rape, Section 566.030. Defendant claims the trial court: (1) abused its discretion in sustaining the State's objections and precluding Defendant from cross-examining the victim regarding the effect a conviction for child endangennent would have on her military career; (2) committed plain error and abused its discretion in permitting doctor's testimony regarding the results of the Triage Drug Screen; and (3) erred in imposing judgment and sentence against Defendant because the record does not demonstrate that Defendant was personally arraigned, that he personally waived arraignment, or that he personally waived objection to proceeding to trial without arraignment.
We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
. All further statutory references are to RSMo. (2000)