Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Sanders, Appellant.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-charles-sanders-appellant-17742
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=17742
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=State+of+Missouri%2C+Respondent%2C+v.+Charles+Sanders%2C+Appellant.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: criminal)

---
## Opinion

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Opinion
Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
Case Style:  State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Charles Sanders, Appellant.
Case Number:  54416
Handdown Date:  02/24/1998
Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Edith L. Messina
Counsel for Appellant:  A. Renae Adamson
Counsel for Respondent:  Elizabeth L. Ziegler
Opinion Summary: 
None
Citation: 
Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM
Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  Denvir Stith, P.J., Hanna and Riederer, J.J., concur.
Opinion:
ORDER
Mr. Sanders appeals his convictions for first degree robbery and armed criminal action.  He claims that the motion 
court plainly erred in failing to,  sua sponte, declare a mistrial when the prosecutor, during closing argument, made 
statements which Mr. Sanders suggests were improper personal epithets and which improperly invoked fears of Mr. 
Sanders' propensity to commit future crimes.
Because we disagree with Mr. Sanders' interpretation of the nature and effect of the prosecutor's remarks, and 
finding no precedential value to our decision, we affirm by this summary order.  We have provided the parties with a 
memorandum setting out the reasons for our decision.  Rule 30.25(b).
Separate Opinion:
None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.