Opinion ID: 2419836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Madison's Right of Confrontation

Text: Madison asserts that the trial court violated his due process and confrontation rights when it sentenced him as a prior offender because he was not present at the enhancement proceeding. Section 558.021.4, RSMo, requires that defendants be afforded full rights of confrontation and cross-examination, with the opportunity to present evidence at persistent offender hearings. Madison's attorney did appear on his behalf at the persistent offender hearing and did not object to his client's absence or to admission of a certified copy of Madison's prior conviction. When Madison was brought into the courtroom and informed that a hearing had taken place, he did not object. Failure to assert an objection based upon the right of confrontation at the earliest possible opportunity constitutes a waiver of that objection. State v. Smith, 727 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Mo. App. W.D.1987). In State v. Tunstall, 848 S.W.2d 530 (Mo.App. E.D.1993), the court held that although the defendant was not present during the prior offender hearing, because his attorney was present and did not object to defendant's absence at any time, defendant had waived his right to be present. Furthermore, Madison points to no evidence he could have presented at that hearing that would have prevented the court from concluding that he was a prior offender. To be entitled to vacation of sentence and remand, where the irregularity concerns determination of prior offender status, actual prejudice must be established. State v. Lowery, 926 S.W.2d 712, 713 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). Madison is not entitled to relief.