Court Opinion

ID: 9656599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:52:13.255002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:52.834166
License: Public Domain

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur. I write separately regarding the failure to allege in the information filed in the case the principal opinion identifies as “Case 2” that Kim D. Morgan (defendant) was a persistent offender. Defendant was apprised of the trial court’s intention to try him as a persistent offender before trial commenced. Rule 24.04(b)(2) provides, as pertinent here, “Defenses and objections based on defects ... in the indictment or information other than that it fails to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense may be raised only by motion before trial.” (Emphasis added.) Defendant did not challenge the trial court’s intention to try him as a persistent offender by motion before the trial commenced. For that reason he has no standing to raise the issue on appeal.