State v. Summerhill

628 S.W.2d 951, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3470
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 16, 1982
DocketNo. 43623
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 628 S.W.2d 951 (State v. Summerhill) 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. Summerhill, 628 S.W.2d 951, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3470 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of stealing forty-three cents from the person of Edsel Wright. The jury assessed punishment at two years imprisonment, but the trial judge found defendant to be a persistent offender and enhanced punishment to ten years imprisonment. Defendant asserts instructional error regarding punishment. We affirm.

Edsel Wright was waiting for a bus when defendant placed his hand on Wright’s shoulder and asked for money. When Wright advised defendant he couldn’t help, defendant snatched from Wright’s hand a coin purse containing forty-three cents. Defendant walked away after returning the coin purse to Wright.

Defendant argues the trial court erred in giving jury instruction MAI-CR 2d 2.60, for the reason the instruction affirmatively misled the jury by stating that the court could sentence the defendant to a term “not to exceed the term assessed as declared by the jury.”

The instruction complained of is as follows:

You are further instructed that if you find the defendant guilty of Stealing Without Consent, as submitted in Instruction No. 5, the court may, under the law, sentence the defendant to either:
1. Imprisonment for a term fixed by the court, but not to exceed the term assessed and declared by the jury in its verdict, or
2. The payment of a fine, the amount of which would be determined by the court in accordance with applicable statutes, or
3. Both such imprisonment and the payment of such a fine.
In your deliberations your duty is to determine whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, and, if you find him guilty, to assess and declare the punishment as directed in other instructions given to you. (Emphasis added.)

The giving of MAI-CR 2d 2.60 was mandatory. This holding is controlled by State v. Johnson, 615 S.W.2d 450 (Mo.App.1981) and State v. Williams, 620 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.App.1981).

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER, J., concur.

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

Related

State v. Gadberry
638 S.W.2d 312 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
628 S.W.2d 951, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-summerhill-moctapp-1982.