Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antonio McCown WRIGHT, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-06-26
Citations: 48 S.W.3d 111
Docket Number: No. ED 77270
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Antonio McCown WRIGHT, Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J., and MARY RHODES RUSSELL and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 48
Pages: 111–112

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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).