State Ex Rel. LaChance v. Bowersox
This text of 119 S.W.3d 95 (State Ex Rel. LaChance v. Bowersox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Michael Bowersox is directed to correct the records of the department of corrections to reflect that the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in case no. 96CR-001022(1) is to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively, with the seven-year sentences imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis City in case no. 951-2736. A permanent writ of mandamus shall issue accordingly.
When pronouncing sentence in case no. 96CR001022(1), the court failed to state whether the sentences as to those offenses shall run consecutively to or concurrently with sentences imposed in case no. 951-2736, offenses for which LaChance had been previously sentenced. As the court failed to do so at the time of pronouncing the sentences, the respective sentences shall run concurrently. Rule 29.09.
To the extent the written judgment imposed the sentences consecutively, it was a material difference from the sentence orally pronounced. If a material difference exists, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Franklin, 975 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. App.1998). The oral pronouncement of the circuit court of St. Louis County was of a maximum sentence of 13 years.
The Court expresses its appreciation to Attorney Fernando Bermudez, who represented petitioner pro bono by appointment of the Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
119 S.W.3d 95, 2003 Mo. LEXIS 132, 2003 WL 22233845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-lachance-v-bowersox-mo-2003.