Anderson v. State

629 S.W.2d 421, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3815
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedSeptember 29, 1981
DocketNo. 43973
StatusPublished

This text of 629 S.W.2d 421 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. State, 629 S.W.2d 421, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3815 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

GUNN, Judge.

This ease is another among the flurry of appeals involving the impact of Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc), (Sours I), vacated, 446 U.S. 962, 100 S.Ct. 2935, 64 L.Ed.2d 820, on remand, 603 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. banc 1980), (Sours II), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1131, 101 S.Ct. 953, 67 L.Ed.2d 118 (1981). Defendant filed his Rule 27.26 motion challenging, inter alia, his armed criminal action convictions. § 559.225, RSMo. Supp.1976.

Defendant had pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action, with sentences on the latter concurrent with those imposed for robbery. Following a hearing, the trial court sustained that portion of the motion relating to the convictions for armed criminal action, finding a double jeopardy violation based on Sours I. The state has appealed urging that Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and other United States Supreme Court decisions hold that a legislature may properly enact legislation to impose separate punishment for separate crimes, albeit the crimes arise out of the same facts. But Sours I and II specifically hold that convictions and sentences for armed criminal action and first degree robbery cannot co-exist as being a double jeopardy violation. The Sours cases have been examined in the light of Albernaz and reaffirmed in State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. banc 1981).1 We comply with the clear dictate of the Missouri Supreme Court and affirm the trial court’s ruling which reverses the defendant’s armed criminal action convictions. State v. Harris, 622 S.W.2d 330 (Mo.App.1981); State ex rel. Westfall v. Crowder, 621 S.W.2d 717 (Mo.App.1981).

Judgment affirmed.

CRIST, P. J., and REINHARD and SNYDER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Albernaz v. United States
450 U.S. 333 (Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Haggard
619 S.W.2d 44 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1981)
Sours v. State
603 S.W.2d 592 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1980)
Sours v. State
593 S.W.2d 208 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1980)
State v. Harris
622 S.W.2d 330 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
State v. Greer
619 S.W.2d 62 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1981)
State v. Greer
619 S.W.2d 65 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1981)
State v. McGee
619 S.W.2d 70 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1981)
State v. Sinclair
619 S.W.2d 73 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1981)
State ex rel. Westfall v. Crowder
621 S.W.2d 717 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1981)
McGuire v. Leigh
446 U.S. 962 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Missouri v. Sours
446 U.S. 962 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Marin County Democratic Central Committee v. Unger
449 U.S. 1131 (Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 S.W.2d 421, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 3815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-moctapp-1981.