Juralos v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juralos v. State

641 S.W.2d 445, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3965

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 1982

DocketNo. 45431

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 641 S.W.2d 445 (Juralos 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

Juralos v. State, 641 S.W.2d 445, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3965 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Appeal from summary denial of a Rule 27.26 motion. Movant-defendant had been convicted of first-degree burglary. State v. Juralos, 611 S.W.2d 569 (Mo.App.1981).

The sole contention now raised is lack of effective counsel in failing to offer an instruction on the lesser included offense of second-degree burglary. The statutory distinction is whether there is a person lawfully present in the burglarized property. Sections 569.160.1 and 569.170.1, RSMo. 1978.

The underlying evidence here was that defendant and one Peter Hardimon went onto the front porch of Mrs. Archie Jett’s home; Hardimon broke a screen and door; as he entered the house Mrs. Jett pointed a gun at him; both men fled. See State v. Juralos, supra.

Section 556.046.2 states: “The court shall not be obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense.” An instruction on a lesser included offense need not be given when, as here, it is not supported the evidence. Defendant’s point was squarely refuted in State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744[6] (Mo.App.1981). See also State v. Umfleet, 538 S.W.2d 55[7-8] (Mo.App.1976).

Counsel was not ineffective in failing to request an instruction on second-degree burglary. Compare Brown v. State, 490 S.W.2d 657[1—4] (Mo.App.1973).

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

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

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Appeal from summary denial of a Rule 27.26 motion. Movant-defendant had been convicted of first-degree burglary. State v. Juralos, 611 S.W.2d 569 (Mo.App.1981).

The sole contention now raised is lack of effective counsel in failing to offer an instruction on the lesser included offense of second-degree burglary. The statutory distinction is whether there is a person lawfully present in the burglarized property. Sections 569.160.1 and 569.170.1, RSMo. 1978.

The underlying evidence here was that defendant and one Peter Hardimon went onto the front porch of Mrs. Archie Jett’s home; Hardimon broke a screen and door; as he entered the house Mrs. Jett pointed a gun at him; both men fled. See State v. Juralos, supra.

Section 556.046.2 states: “The court shall not be obligated to charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense.” An instruction on a lesser included offense need not be given when, as here, it is not supported the evidence. Defendant’s point was squarely refuted in State v. Hill, 614 S.W.2d 744[6] (Mo.App.1981). See also State v. Umfleet, 538 S.W.2d 55[7-8] (Mo.App.1976).

Counsel was not ineffective in failing to request an instruction on second-degree burglary. Compare Brown v. State, 490 S.W.2d 657[1—4] (Mo.App.1973).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 S.W.2d 445, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juralos-v-state-moctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack