State v. Rogers

Citation285 S.W. 976
Decision Date25 June 1926
Docket NumberNo. 26997.,26997.
PartiesSTATE v. ROGERS et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Nelson E. Johnson, Judge.

Roy Rogers and others were convicted of larceny of an automobile, and they appeal. Affirmed.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and James A. Potter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BLAIR, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Jackson county circuit court, sentencing appellants to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for 15 years each for violation of the Laws of 1921, First Extra Session, at page 105. The judgment was entered upon pleas of guilty under an information charging appellants with larceny of an automobile. Motions to set aside the judgment and for new trial, and to permit withdrawals of such pleas of guilty, were overruled, and an appeal was granted to this court.

The grounds upon which said motions were based were that the record showed that allocution was not accorded to appellants before sentence was passed; that appellants were not permitted to consult with counsel or a friend before their pleas of guilty were entered and sentence was passed upon them; and because appellants were misled and entered said pleas of guilty upon the representation of the prosecuting attorney that the terms of imprisonment which would be imposed upon them would not exceed three to five years.

The information was filed November 2, 1925, and on that day appellants were arraigned and each entered his plea of guilty. The transcript of the proceedings at that time shows that, before such pleas were accepted by the trial court and sentence pronounced, each of the appellants was asked by the court whether he desired to consult with a friend or an attorney, and he said he did not so desire. Each was asked if he was guilty, and each said that he was guilty. An affidavit, admitting the larceny of the automobile described in the information and other automobiles, and the particular circumstances attending each theft, had been signed by appellant Rogers. He was asked at that time if it was his affidavit, and if the facts stated therein were true. Said appellant acknowledged that it was true, and stated that he and the other appellants had taken several automobiles. Appellant Braden was asked if it was true that he had taken several cars, and he replied, "Four that I know of." The court then asked appellant Henderson, "What about it?" and he said, "Yes." The court then asked appellants their ages. Rogers said he was 20, Henderson said he was 18, and Braden said he was 18. When asked if he had been arrested before, Braden said that be had been arrested for automobile theft, but had not served time for it, for some reason not disclosed. Henderson admitted having been arrested in the railroad yards, and that he had stolen property of: some kind at that time, and had been sentenced to 2 years in the reformatory. Rogers admitted having been arrested for having a stolen automobile. The case against him had been pending in the federal court, but he had been released for some reason not disclosed. The record shows that the trial judge then made this announcement:

"Defendants plead guilty, waiving consultation. Each is sentenced to 15 years in the state penitentiary."

The foregoing proceedings, had at the time the pleas were entered, were made a part of the record at the hearing upon the motions to set aside the judgment and for new trial. Upon such hearing each of the appellants testified in substance that he was informed by the police officers and by the assistant prosecuting attorney having the matter in charge that, if he would plead guilty to one of the charges, the other charges against him would be dropped, and that he would not get more than 5 years' imprisonment; that he had not been permitted to see his friends or relatives, or to consult counsel, and that he had been told that, when the judge asked him if he desired to consult a lawyer or a friend before entering his plea of guilty, to tell the judge "No."

One of the appellants said he had been beaten by the officers to secure his confession, and the others said that they confessed to avoid such beating. Appellants were arrested October 31st and entered their pleas of guilty two days later. The trial judge remarked during the hearing that neither of the appellants presented any appearance of having been beaten when sentence was pronounced. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT