Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph LUCAS, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1999-05-25
Citations: 992 S.W.2d 353
Docket Number: No. 74692
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph LUCAS, Appellant.
Judges: Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J., KAROHL, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 992
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph LUCAS, Appellant.
No. 74692.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
May 25, 1999.
Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Breck K. Burgess, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., C.J., KAROHL, J. and CHARLES B. BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals after conviction and sentence as a prior offender for committing violence to an employee of the Department of Corrections, a class C felony. Section 217.385 RSMo 1994. His points are not reviewable. They are without merit.
A ruling granting a motion in limine is not appealable. State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 592 (Mo. banc 1992). A ruling sustaining an objection to a question Defendant addressed to his own witness is not appealable in the absence of an offer of proof. Id. There was no offer of proof. Further, this point was not preserved in Defendant's motion for new trial. Defendant did not object to the State's closing argument that his defense made no sense. His claim of plain error is not supported by fact or law. State v. Cobb, 875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 896, 115 S.Ct. 250, 130 L.Ed.2d 172 (1994).
No jurisprudential would be served by an extended opinion.
The judgment is affirmed.