State v. Tunstall

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Tunstall

607 S.W.2d 809, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3313

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 7, 1980

Docket42034

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 607 S.W.2d 809 (State v. Tunstall) 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. Tunstall, 607 S.W.2d 809, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3313 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

*810 DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Upon jury verdict, appellant was convicted of attempted first degree robbery and armed criminal action. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 10 years for attempted robbery and 6 years for armed criminal action.

In his appeal from his convictions, appellant raises only one contention. He argues his convictions for attempted robbery and armed criminal action subjected him to multiple punishment for the same offense in violation of state and federal constitutional provisions prohibiting double jeopardy.

Our Supreme Court has held that conviction of armed criminal action and the underlying felony constitutes a violation of the rule against double jeopardy and that the armed criminal action conviction cannot stand. Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1980). Our Supreme Court reinstated and reaffirmed their holding in Sours v. State, 603 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. banc 1980). Although the underlying felony in the above-cited Supreme Court cases was first degree robbery, the holding of the above-cited cases would also be applicable if the underlying felony were attempted first degree robbery. State v. Smith, 607 S.W.2d 737 (Mo.App.1980).

Appellant’s conviction of and sentence for attempted first degree robbery is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction of and sentence for armed criminal action is reversed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

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

*810 DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Upon jury verdict, appellant was convicted of attempted first degree robbery and armed criminal action. Appellant was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 10 years for attempted robbery and 6 years for armed criminal action.

In his appeal from his convictions, appellant raises only one contention. He argues his convictions for attempted robbery and armed criminal action subjected him to multiple punishment for the same offense in violation of state and federal constitutional provisions prohibiting double jeopardy.

Our Supreme Court has held that conviction of armed criminal action and the underlying felony constitutes a violation of the rule against double jeopardy and that the armed criminal action conviction cannot stand. Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. banc 1980). Our Supreme Court reinstated and reaffirmed their holding in Sours v. State, 603 S.W.2d 592 (Mo. banc 1980). Although the underlying felony in the above-cited Supreme Court cases was first degree robbery, the holding of the above-cited cases would also be applicable if the underlying felony were attempted first degree robbery. State v. Smith, 607 S.W.2d 737 (Mo.App.1980).

Appellant’s conviction of and sentence for attempted first degree robbery is affirmed. Appellant’s conviction of and sentence for armed criminal action is reversed.

REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 S.W.2d 809, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tunstall-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack