State v. Sloan, 561 S.W.3d 831

Sloan was charged with resisting arrest, second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer (lesser included convicted), and third-degree assault of a corrections officer; jury convicted on resisting and third-degree assault and of a lesser offense on the second-degree count.
The State's Second Amended Information alleged dangerous-offender status based on a prior felony robbery conviction; the prosecution produced a certified copy pretrial and defense did not object.
Trial testimony: officers encountered Sloan at a gas station, discovered an outstanding felony warrant, attempted to handcuff him, Sloan stiffened/pulled, and after handcuffs were applied Sloan leaned/threw his hips back, placed weight on an officer and later shoved/locked his feet at the jail entrance causing a head strike to a corrections officer; an officer’s hand was fractured during the struggle.
Sloan moved for judgment of acquittal at trial (denied); court sentenced Sloan to concurrent prison terms, enhancing under the dangerous-offender statute.
On appeal Sloan raised (1) plain-error challenge to the dangerous-offender finding for insufficient notice and (2) insufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest because the resistance allegedly occurred after arrest was complete.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sloan)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether trial court plainly erred by finding Sloan a "dangerous offender" due to inadequate notice	State failed to plead the factual basis constitutionally required to enhance punishment; jury verdict did not find the requisite knowing infliction/threat of serious physical injury	The information contained allegations (knowing contact; reckless serious injury) that gave notice and State presented prior-conviction proof; court may determine dangerous-offender facts prior to sentencing using trial testimony	Affirmed: no plain error—information and trial testimony provided adequate notice and basis for dangerous-offender finding
Whether evidence was sufficient to support resisting-arrest conviction (resistance must occur while arrest is in progress)	Arrest was complete once handcuffs were applied, so subsequent conduct occurred while in custody and cannot be resisting	An arrest is not necessarily complete upon handcuffing if the officer lacks control; evidence showed ongoing resistance (stiffening, leaning, attempting to head-butt, forcing officer against display) while officer had not yet secured control	Affirmed: sufficient evidence that resistance occurred while arrest was still being effectuated

State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard for viewing evidence on sufficiency review)
State v. Libertus, 496 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (notice requirements for dangerous-offender allegations in information)
State v. Ajak, 543 S.W.3d 43 (Mo. banc 2018) (arrest completion depends on whether officer has control, handcuffs alone may not suffice)
State v. Hunt, 451 S.W.3d 251 (Mo. banc 2014) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)
State v. Ondo, 231 S.W.3d 314 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (resisting-arrest requires resistance during arrest, not after completion)