Whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion to suppress impeachment evidence and admitting prior bad acts evidence that prejudicially impacted the defendant's right to a fair trial

No question identified. : oe LCono state usucp the factual findings of a jury and | the oral _pronouncemeat of the Judge at sentencing to_upholel_a conviction anc_seateace foc.aecime that — | was cleacly olisproven at trial 2 ; ces_a_court abuse its discretion in cleaying dleteadaats— Mo aa_foc_dismissal of conviction fc_tespondeats teilure , Hheie_possesstog 2 Ate vochacged and unadjudicated prioc bad acts allegedly committed while defendant suas o juvenille gains+ anether ywuenille admissable as propensity e fo commit a ccime? 4, Does o chefendaat _iavite error or waive ecto in the mission_ot evidence by crossexamining a witness an Hy tevidence after it was presented “over objection? to bolster and make false clains to the jury? 6. Can_o_clefencant he sentenced aod convicted of a rime _uthere age is « Key elemeat, without a jucy elecnination of fact on Het clement? 7. Con oa defenclaat ino ctiminal case be sentenced on the basis of an iavalid premise or innaccucate takocmatiion 9.Does the best evidence. rule apply ta the record conteats of_cell phones, such that befare adeission_of secondary e vicleace_of those contents, the primary evideoce raust _ be unavailable anc snaccessable,natsa Heic | . i ___LIST_OF PARTIES IN. COURT. BELO) = > A ILpacties appeac in the caption.ot the. Case onthe cover page. LIST OF CASES DIRECTLY RELATED To THIS CASE © Schachtner v. Brewer, No. 23-3707 U.S. Couct of Appeals for the Lighth Grreuif 4 ppeal trom U.S. Distcict Court for the western ___ District of Missoun! Joplin (3:23-cv-Oso84-MDH) A pplication fae Cectificate of Appealability Denied_aacl Dismissed _Apeil 03,2024 ___ ~ Petition foc Rehearing en banc ancl Petition foc Rehescing @ David R. Schachtnec_v. Chets Brewer, No.3!23-¢v0S084-MDH Retitiaa under 28 US.C.§ 2254 foc Welt 0 fo Habeas Corpus by a pecsoa in state custody ___ — Weit and Cectificate af Appealability —— ——_ Denied cna Dismissed November 28 2022 _ © State of Missouri vu David &. Schachtner, No. SDZ26IG Ciccult Couct case No. 21AO=-CCOOO2ZO ction fac Rehearing oc, ia the Altecnative Trans fet Denied Sune /4, 2022 . ) iv ® David Schachtner_v. State of Missouri, Mo. $D37619 Supreme Court of Missouri |_Motien for Reheacing ot, ia the Altecnative. Teapstec ___ to_the_ Supreme Court of Missoure Consideced_to be tiled out of time and thetetoc not Closed May 23,2023 ® Davicl Rodney Schachiner v. State of Misscvci, Ne. SO326/¢ Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Claim ules Dented May 2,2023 Mandate issued May 23.2023. © David BR. Schachinec v. State of Missour’, Mo. 2IAO-CCOCO7O ( wicewit Court of Jaspec Gunty Missourt Amended Motlion_te Vacate, Set Asicle of Correct Denled May 24,2022 © David &. Schachter Vv, State of Missouti, No. SC98924 _SD36092 Supreme Court of Missouri en banc. | An plication toc Transtel trana Missouti Couct of Deniedk December 22,2020 \ | : V x ° State of Missouri v. David R. Schachtner, Mo SD3G60%3 Missouc! Covet of Appea|s Southeen Distrfet strict ftom the Creut Court of Jasper County Missove) ___ . ACh i¢med nck Remandd with Insructions October 6, 2020 ¢ State of Missouri v. Davie R. Schachtnet, Mo.) TAO-CROOT?6-O1 Circuit Court of Jasper County, AMissouti : envicted of Attempt L Stet: tats Socloin Va _ Sentencecdl to bike Lngprisoameat April [Sj 201@ : 5 . . : CONTENTS PAGE | CONTENTS Rage List of Acties (a Gort Behe _ dijo ble of Authorities Vi ABLE OF CONTENTS lCitetlonc of Qpiaions and Orders in Case | —_ Jurisdictional Skutement ‘onstitutional and_S: tatutory Provisions lavolved _ 4 atement of phe Case Reasons fer Graoting the Wei ___{4___ ADEX 70 APPENDICE