Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony ESPOSITO, Defendant/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-12-02
Citations: 130 S.W.3d 596
Docket Number: No. ED 82200
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony ESPOSITO, Defendant/Appellant.
Judges: Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 130
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Anthony ESPOSITO, Defendant/Appellant.
No. ED 82200.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Dec. 2, 2003.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2004.
Application for Transfer Denied April 27, 2004.
Amanda R. Schehr, Public Defenders Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
' John Munson Morris, Evan Joseph Buchheim, Andrea Kaye Spillars, Attorney General’s Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, C.J., ROBERT G. DOWD, J., and GEORGE W. DRAPER III, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Esposito (Defendant) appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count each of attempted manufacturing of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and stealing anhydrous ammonia. Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions and argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor not to use voir dire to posture the State's case to the jury. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might have found Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Shinn, 921 S.W.2d 70, 72-73 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Further, Defendant has not met his burden of demonstrating manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice resulted from the prosecutor's comments, and therefore the trial court did not plainly err in failing to admonish, sua sponte, the prosecutor. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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 Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b).