State v. Myers

470 S.W.2d 803, 1971 Mo. App. LEXIS 599
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided August 18, 1971·No. 9138·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged in the Circuit Court of Laclede County with the second offense misdemeanor of operating a motor *804 vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. § 564.440. 1 Out of the hearing of the jury, the trial court conducted a pre-trial investigation of defendant’s previous conviction and determined that on September 27, 1964, “defendant was convicted of driving an automobile while in an intoxicated condition, a misdemeanor * * * and paid a fine of” $10 and costs of $11.55 “in the Magistrate Court.” 2 Thereafter, the court announced “the only issue that will be submitted to the jury will be the guilt or innocence of the defendant.” Following trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court assessed “the defendant’s punishment at confinement in the Laclede County jail for a term of four months.” Defendant’s post trial motions were overruled and he appealed prematurely before allocution, sentence and judgment. State v. Myers, Mo.App., 467 S.W.2d 577. Subsequent to remand and proper procedures, defendant has again appealed. His complaint, as in the court nisi, is that the trial court erroneously applied § 556.280 3 (the Habitual Criminal Act) to a misdemeanor case and thereby deprived him of the right to have the jury determine his punishment as well as his guilt or innocence.

The Habitual Criminal Act (§ 556.280) is highly penal and must be strictly construed. State v. Hacker, Mo., 291 S.W.2d 155, 157(1). As it appears in the act, “punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary” is a term of art (State v. Kiddoo, Mo., 354 S.W.2d 883, 885) and constitutes an exact synonym for “felony,” which is defined in § 556.020. 4 The authority for a trial court to assess punishment in a jury case under the Habitual Criminal Act is properly exercised only where a defendant previously has been convicted of a felony [State v. Ginnings, Mo., 466 S.W.2d 675, 677(1); State v. Briggs, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 361, 362; State v. Garrett, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 116, 120(7)] and has been “charged with having thereafter committed a felony.” § 556.280. No authority is derived from § 564.440 (intoxicated driving) for a trial court to assess punishment, and when the Habitual Criminal Act is not applicable, defendant is entitled to have the jury deter *805 mine his punishment. State v. Young, Mo., 366 S.W.2d 386, 390; § 556.280(2).

Had the first two violations of § 564.440 (intoxicated driving) not been specifically denominated as misdemeanors in the statute, determining them to be such would be a facile matter by reference to § 556.040. 5 Sections 564.440 and 556.280 each contain provisions that the trial court should conduct proceedings out of the hearing of the jury to determine prior convictions. However, the hearing conducted under § 556.280 is held to ascertain if the Habitual Criminal Act is pertinent, whereas under § 564.440 the hearing is to determine whether defendant is correctly charged with a second offense misdemeanor or with a felony and how to instruct the jury on punishment bounds if he is found guilty. No felony was involved in the present case. Defendant was charged with a misdemeanor and the prior conviction was alleged to have been a misdemeanor. When a defendant was charged under Laws 1923, § 22, p. 243, with the second offense misdemeanor of possessing intoxicating liquor, it was held in State v. Lee, Mo.App., 298 S.W. 1044, 1045(3), that the habitual criminal section “deals with felony cases * * * and has no application to a prosecution of this character.” A sentence fixed by the court instead of by the jury when the Habitual Criminal Act is not applicable is void [State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 107, 110(5)], and although the punishment assessed by the court was what the jury could have fixed, the defendant was prejudiced because the jury might have imposed a lesser punishment. State v. Wiley, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 485, 487. Because defendant was improperly tried and his punishment improperly fixed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

All concur.

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

State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803, 1971 Mo. App. LEXIS 599 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971).

470 S.W.2d 803 (State v. Myers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Briegel
886 S.W.2d 705 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 1994)
State v. Olson
806 S.W.2d 111 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
State v. Howard
606 S.W.2d 268 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980)
State v. Smith
591 S.W.2d 263 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
State v. Wickizer
583 S.W.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1979)
State v. Bryant
538 S.W.2d 340 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1976)
State v. Kaiser
534 S.W.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1976)
State v. Kennedy
513 S.W.2d 697 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1974)
State v. Hanson
493 S.W.2d 8 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1973)