Carrothers v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carrothers v. State

851 S.W.2d 1, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 1992 WL 321406

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 10, 1992

DocketNo. 61739

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 851 S.W.2d 1 (Carrothers 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

Carrothers v. State, 851 S.W.2d 1, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 1992 WL 321406 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Andrew Carrothers (movant), appeals from the denial, without an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pled guilty to illegally selling a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211 RSMo (Supp.1991). After determining movant to be a class X offender under § 558.019 RSMo (Supp. 1991), the trial court sentenced movant to ten years’ imprisonment. We reverse and remand.

In his sole point, movant contends the motion court erred “in concluding that the state proved and that [movant] admitted [three] prior convictions, where the record shows the state identified only [two] prior convictions in support of the class X charge and [movant] did not admit the truth of the allegations in the amended petition.” The state has conceded error, and the record supports movant’s contention. Accordingly, we reverse the motion court’s order denying movant’s request for post-conviction relief. The cause is remanded to the sentencing court for a hearing to determine whether movant is a class X offender. On remand, the sentencing court “is free to resentence in accord with the findings and the appropriate sentencing statute.” Nash v. State, 775 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Mo.App. 1989).

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Andrew Carrothers (movant), appeals from the denial, without an eviden-tiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pled guilty to illegally selling a controlled substance in violation of § 195.211 RSMo (Supp.1991). After determining movant to be a class X offender under § 558.019 RSMo (Supp. 1991), the trial court sentenced movant to ten years’ imprisonment. We reverse and remand.

In his sole point, movant contends the motion court erred “in concluding that the state proved and that [movant] admitted [three] prior convictions, where the record shows the state identified only [two] prior convictions in support of the class X charge and [movant] did not admit the truth of the allegations in the amended petition.” The state has conceded error, and the record supports movant’s contention. Accordingly, we reverse the motion court’s order denying movant’s request for post-conviction relief. The cause is remanded to the sentencing court for a hearing to determine whether movant is a class X offender. On remand, the sentencing court “is free to resentence in accord with the findings and the appropriate sentencing statute.” Nash v. State, 775 S.W.2d 338, 339 (Mo.App. 1989).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

851 S.W.2d 1, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1688, 1992 WL 321406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carrothers-v-state-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack