Missouri Court of Appeals· 3/27/2001

State v. Cullen

Citations

39 S.W.3d 899
2001 Mo. App. LEXIS 521
2001 WL 291438

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

distinguishing, in context of double jeopardy ruling, those cases where a crime’s status can be enhanced as a felony from those where prior convictions enhance a sentence and thus are not an “essential element” of the offense and do not require submission to a jury
United State Supreme Court explicitly declined to overrule Almendarez-Torres and specifically exempted recidivism from the Apprendi holding
issues were whether the State could prove the defendant’s alleged persistent driving while intoxicated offender status after submission of the case to the jury and whether the State’s appeal was barred by the double jeopardy clause
“Prior convictions are the basis for enhanced punishment or procedural differences, and the 10 State is required not only to prove the fact of prior convictions, but to do so in conformity with applicable statutory requirements.” (citing Monroe, 18 S.W.3d at 458)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Richard B. Teitelman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.