State v. Perkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Perkins

555 S.W.2d 693, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2615

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 1977

DocketNo. KCD 28634

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 555 S.W.2d 693 (State v. Perkins) 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

State v. Perkins, 555 S.W.2d 693, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging robbery first degree in the first count, rape in the second count, and sodomy in the third count. On this appeal, he raises the single contention that [694]*694the trial court erred in refusing his motion for severance. He argues in support that Rule 24.04 allowing joinder of these three counts is an unconstitutional enactment in violation of Article V, § 5 of the Missouri Constitution.

State v. Baker, 524 S.W.2d 122 (Mo.banc 1975) contradicts defendant’s position. Burnside v. State, 552 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Brannom, 539 S.W.2d 747 (Mo.App.1976). Defendant relies upon the views expressed in one of the concurring opinions in the Baker case, which disagrees with the majority of the court with respect to the validity of Rule 24.04. However, this court has no choice but to follow and apply the majority view expressed in Baker. State v. Toney, 537 S.W.2d 586, l.c. 596[9] (Mo.App.1976).

Affirmed.

All concur.

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

WASSERSTROM, Judge.

Defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging robbery first degree in the first count, rape in the second count, and sodomy in the third count. On this appeal, he raises the single contention that [694]*694the trial court erred in refusing his motion for severance. He argues in support that Rule 24.04 allowing joinder of these three counts is an unconstitutional enactment in violation of Article V, § 5 of the Missouri Constitution.

State v. Baker, 524 S.W.2d 122 (Mo.banc 1975) contradicts defendant’s position. Burnside v. State, 552 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Brannom, 539 S.W.2d 747 (Mo.App.1976). Defendant relies upon the views expressed in one of the concurring opinions in the Baker case, which disagrees with the majority of the court with respect to the validity of Rule 24.04. However, this court has no choice but to follow and apply the majority view expressed in Baker. State v. Toney, 537 S.W.2d 586, l.c. 596[9] (Mo.App.1976).

Affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

555 S.W.2d 693, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perkins-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack