Carpenter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carpenter v. State

513 S.W.2d 702, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 23, 1974

DocketNo. 35617

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 513 S.W.2d 702 (Carpenter 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

Carpenter v. State, 513 S.W.2d 702, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Judge.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying movant’s 27.26, V.A.M.S. motion to vacate two concurrent 20-year sentences on the alleged ground of double jeopardy.

On January 12, 1972 movant pleaded guilty to two charges of first-degree robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. These pleas were accepted after movant admitted that on June 16, 1971 while armed with a pistol he had robbed Johnny Brown, the operator of a confec-tionary, and on the same occasion similarly robbed Lellar Mason, a clerk in the store. Movant was sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms.

[703]*703As movant correctly points out, the United States Supreme Court has held that an acquittal on one charge of robbery can preclude a subsequent prosecution on a second charge. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469. Under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy, the state may be estopped from prosecuting a second time when the accused was previously acquitted of a similar charge arising from the same incident. Movant would now have us apply this reasoning to cases in which the accused was convicted of the first offense rather than acquitted. The Missouri Supreme Court however has decided otherwise. In State v. Moton, 476 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.1972), the court held that where defendant robbed two persons on the same occasion, a conviction for one of the robberies does not bar a prosecution for the other robbery. Id. at 790. We are bound by that decision and accordingly find movant’s privilege against double jeopardy was not violated by his conviction for both offenses.

The order overruling the 27.26 V.A.M.S. motion is affirmed.

SMITH, P. J., and McMILLIAN and GUNN, JJ., concur.

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

CLEMENS, Judge.

Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis denying movant’s 27.26, V.A.M.S. motion to vacate two concurrent 20-year sentences on the alleged ground of double jeopardy.

On January 12, 1972 movant pleaded guilty to two charges of first-degree robbery by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. These pleas were accepted after movant admitted that on June 16, 1971 while armed with a pistol he had robbed Johnny Brown, the operator of a confec-tionary, and on the same occasion similarly robbed Lellar Mason, a clerk in the store. Movant was sentenced to concurrent 20-year terms.

[703]*703As movant correctly points out, the United States Supreme Court has held that an acquittal on one charge of robbery can preclude a subsequent prosecution on a second charge. Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469. Under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against double jeopardy, the state may be estopped from prosecuting a second time when the accused was previously acquitted of a similar charge arising from the same incident. Movant would now have us apply this reasoning to cases in which the accused was convicted of the first offense rather than acquitted. The Missouri Supreme Court however has decided otherwise. In State v. Moton, 476 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.1972), the court held that where defendant robbed two persons on the same occasion, a conviction for one of the robberies does not bar a prosecution for the other robbery. Id. at 790. We are bound by that decision and accordingly find movant’s privilege against double jeopardy was not violated by his conviction for both offenses.

The order overruling the 27.26 V.A.M.S. motion is affirmed.

SMITH, P. J., and McMILLIAN and GUNN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 S.W.2d 702, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-state-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack