Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeryl A. DANIELS, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-06-14
Citations: 491 S.W.3d 680
Docket Number: No. ED 102826
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeryl A. DANIELS, Appellant.
Judges: Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 491
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeryl A. DANIELS, Appellant.
No. ED 102826
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.
Filed: June 14, 2016
Rosalynn Koch, 1000 West Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Mo. 6620, for appellant.
Robert J. Bartholomew, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Mo. 65102, for respondent.
Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and Angela T. Quigless, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Jeryl A. Daniels ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment entered upon his conviction, following a jury trial, of one count of first-degree murder, in violation of Section 565.020, RSMo (2000), two counts of first-degree assault, in violation of Section 565.050, and three counts of armed criminal action ("ACA"), in violation of Section 571.015. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder and fifteen years for each count of assault and ACA, with all sentences running concurrently. Defendant on appeal asserts the trial court erred in overruling his motions for judgment of acquittal, entering judgment of conviction, and sentencing him for first-degree murder because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he deliberated beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also asserts the trial court plainly erred in failing to intervene sua sponte to "effectively admonish and prevent" the State's allegedly improper cross-examination of his alibi witness. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. We conclude no reversible error occurred. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Mo. R. Ceim. PRO. 30.25(b) (2015).
. All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as supplemented, unless otherwise indicated.