Harger v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Harger v. State

832 S.W.2d 24, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 1992 WL 144950

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1992

DocketNo. 60353

StatusPublished

This text of 832 S.W.2d 24 (Harger 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

Harger v. State, 832 S.W.2d 24, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 1992 WL 144950 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a conviction for forcible rape and forcible sodomy for which he was originally sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. This court remanded the case to the circuit court on February 13, 1991, for resentenc-ing. See State v. Harger, 804 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.1991). Defendant was resen-tenced to consecutive terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment pursuant to this mandate.

Defendant contends: the trial court “failed to consider [defendant’s] reputation [25]*25and lack of prior convictions in arriving at the length of sentence in that a presen-tence investigation and other evidence was presented showing that [defendant] should have received concurrent rather than consecutive sentences”; the trial court “failed to comply with the intent of the court of appeals when it issued its mandate remanding the case for resentencing”; and the circuit judge “showed bias and prejudice against [defendant] at the resentencing.” We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. Dorsey v. State, 761 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Tilley, 569 S.W.2d 346, 350 (Mo.App.1978).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a conviction for forcible rape and forcible sodomy for which he was originally sentenced to two consecutive terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment. This court remanded the case to the circuit court on February 13, 1991, for resentenc-ing. See State v. Harger, 804 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.1991). Defendant was resen-tenced to consecutive terms of twenty-five years’ imprisonment pursuant to this mandate.

Defendant contends: the trial court “failed to consider [defendant’s] reputation [25]*25and lack of prior convictions in arriving at the length of sentence in that a presen-tence investigation and other evidence was presented showing that [defendant] should have received concurrent rather than consecutive sentences”; the trial court “failed to comply with the intent of the court of appeals when it issued its mandate remanding the case for resentencing”; and the circuit judge “showed bias and prejudice against [defendant] at the resentencing.” We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. Dorsey v. State, 761 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Tilley, 569 S.W.2d 346, 350 (Mo.App.1978).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by an extended written opinion. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

832 S.W.2d 24, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1076, 1992 WL 144950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harger-v-state-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack