a violation of the fair cross-section requirement, Mr. Robertson was required to show: “(1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this under-representation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process.” Ringo v. State, 120 S.W.3d 743, 747 (Mo. banc 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Mr. Robertson’s statistical evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of the fair cross-section requirement because his evidence only concerns his venire panel. See Taylor v. State, 198 S.W.3d 636, 644 (Mo. App. S.D.2006) (<HOLDING>). Because Mr. Robertson’s evidence did not
holding that where a defendant fails to challenge his plea in district court he must establish plain error holding trial court properly denied defendant relief under rule 3800b2 where defendant attempted to attack his conviction rather than his sentence with a double jeopardy argument holding that the scope of crossexamination did not extend to any bad acts committed by the defendant during his life where defendant presented evidence of adverse circumstances that he experienced in his early childhood rather than evidence of his general good character holding a defendant fails to show underrepresentation when his proffered evidence only concerns the racial composition of his venire panel rather than several venire panels holding that when a district court fails to provide reasons for imposing special conditions and the defendant fails to object we review for plain error