State v. Rideeoutte

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Rideeoutte

560 S.W.2d 70, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1977

DocketNo. 10724

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 560 S.W.2d 70 (State v. Rideeoutte) 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. Rideeoutte, 560 S.W.2d 70, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was found guilty of burglary in the second degree and stealing by a Greene County jury on June 8, 1977. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to two-year terms of confinement for each crime. The trial court specified that said sentences were to be served consecutively.

The parties to the appeal have approved the transcript and affixed their signatures [71]*71thereto. Rule 81.12(c), V.A.M.R., authorizes approval of the transcript on appeal when said transcript correctly reflects all the requisite record of the cause. The instant transcript is deficient in that it contains a transcribed document styled: “SENTENCE TO DIVISION OP CORRECTIONS ON VERDICT OF JURY”. Said document does not demonstrate the date on which it was entered, assuming, arguendo, that said document was ever entered, upon the records of the circuit clerk contrary to Rule 27.11, V.A.M.R.

Were it not for the provisions of Rule 27.11, this court might assume that the task required by said rule had been accomplished but merely omitted from the record. Nevertheless, it is essential that the judgment entry and the date said entry was made be preserved and shown by the record. Therefore, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the cause for supplementation of the record. State v. Pogue, 552 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.App.1977).

It is so ordered.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was found guilty of burglary in the second degree and stealing by a Greene County jury on June 8, 1977. Appellant was thereafter sentenced to two-year terms of confinement for each crime. The trial court specified that said sentences were to be served consecutively.

The parties to the appeal have approved the transcript and affixed their signatures [71]*71thereto. Rule 81.12(c), V.A.M.R., authorizes approval of the transcript on appeal when said transcript correctly reflects all the requisite record of the cause. The instant transcript is deficient in that it contains a transcribed document styled: “SENTENCE TO DIVISION OP CORRECTIONS ON VERDICT OF JURY”. Said document does not demonstrate the date on which it was entered, assuming, arguendo, that said document was ever entered, upon the records of the circuit clerk contrary to Rule 27.11, V.A.M.R.

Were it not for the provisions of Rule 27.11, this court might assume that the task required by said rule had been accomplished but merely omitted from the record. Nevertheless, it is essential that the judgment entry and the date said entry was made be preserved and shown by the record. Therefore, we hold the appeal in abeyance and remand the cause for supplementation of the record. State v. Pogue, 552 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.App.1977).

It is so ordered.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 S.W.2d 70, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rideeoutte-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack