State v. Counselman
Opinions
Reexamination on order of the United States Supreme Court
This case together with several others 1 was ordered reexamined in light of Alber[73] naz v. United States, 450 U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). Since all of the courts of appeals rulings were based upon our ruling in Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208 (Mo.banc 1980) (Sours I) or Sours v. State, 603 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.banc 1980) (Sours II), the cases were all ordered transferred to this Court. Our examination of the double jeopardy issue made in light of Albernaz pursuant to the orders of the United States Supreme Court, appears in State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo.banc 1981).
The original opinion filed by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, State of Counselman, 603 S.W.2d 3 (Mo.App.1980), is approved and affirmed and by reference made a part of this opinion. Sours v. State, 603 S.W.2d 592 (Mo.Banc 1980) (Sours II), cert. denied, Missouri v. Sours, 446 U.S. 962, 101 S.Ct. 953, 67 L.Ed.2d 118 (1981); and State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo.banc 1981).
We affirm the judgment convicting appellant of first degree robbery, but we reverse that part of the judgment convicting appellant of armed criminal action.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
619 S.W.2d 72 (State v. Counselman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.