Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert WINSLOW, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2001-08-28
Citations: 53 S.W.3d 251
Docket Number: No. ED 78440
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert WINSLOW, Appellant.
Judges: Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr., J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 53
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Robert WINSLOW, Appellant.
No. ED 78440.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Aug. 28, 2001.
Jennifer S. Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Anne E. Edgington, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER, Sr., J. and CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Robert Winslow, appeals from the judgment convicting him of two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action. He contends the trial court plainly erred because it failed to sua sponte prohibit the State from trying all four charged offenses in the same trial. Having reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, we conclude the court did not commit error, plain or otherwise. Rule 30.20. An extended opinion would have serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).