State v. Richie

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Richie

940 S.W.2d 58, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 360

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1997

DocketNos. 66652, 68760

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 940 S.W.2d 58 (State v. Richie) 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. Richie, 940 S.W.2d 58, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 360 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, as well as the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Our original opinion affirmed both judgments but transferred Cause No. 66652, the direct appeal, to the Missouri Supreme Court, to resolve a conflict among the districts of this court with regard to whether a previous finding that a defendant is a prior, persistent or Class X offender must be repeated during the oral pronouncement of sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court has now retrans-ferred the case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in Howard Johnson v. State of Missouri, 938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. banc 1997), overruling McCaine v. State, 891 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App.1994) and holding that such prior findings need not be repeated during the oral pronouncement of sentence. In view of this holding, we withdraw our earlier opinion. We again find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his conviction for robbery in the second degree, § 569.030 RSMo 1994, as well as the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Our original opinion affirmed both judgments but transferred Cause No. 66652, the direct appeal, to the Missouri Supreme Court, to resolve a conflict among the districts of this court with regard to whether a previous finding that a defendant is a prior, persistent or Class X offender must be repeated during the oral pronouncement of sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court has now retrans-ferred the case for reconsideration in light of its opinion in Howard Johnson v. State of Missouri, 938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. banc 1997), overruling McCaine v. State, 891 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App.1994) and holding that such prior findings need not be repeated during the oral pronouncement of sentence. In view of this holding, we withdraw our earlier opinion. We again find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 S.W.2d 58, 1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-richie-moctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack