Bradley v. State, 56590
| Decision Date | 10 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 56590,56590,2 |
| Parties | James Z. BRADLEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
James Z. Bradley, pro se, and Austin C. Knetzger, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
In 1956 there were pending against James Z. Bradley two unrelated charges of first degree robbery and one charge of murder in the first degree. The murder charge arose from the fact that in holding up and robbing Peter Chip and his tavern at 1544 North Ninth Street, Bradley and Crews shot Patrolman Thomas Mulrooney who died nine days later. In brief the circumstances were that about six o'clock on the morning of March 16, 1956, Bradley and Crews, armed with a sawed-off shotgun, held up Peter Chip and his early morning patrons saying: 'You big sonofabitch, I will give you ten seconds to give me that check money.' The check-cashing money had not arrived and Peter told the robbers that the only money he had was in his pocket and he gave them $550.00. In the course of the holdup a .38 Colt pistol was taken and a patron was also robbed. Before they could get out one of the robbers said, 'Here come two coppers.' And as Mulrooney and Patrolman James Prost entered a side door there 'was a blast of a gun' at close range and Mulrooney fell. As Bradley and Crews left several more shots were fired, Prost shooting at the fleeing robbers and they shooting and wounding him.
Beginning on November 28, 1956, Bradley was being tried for first degree murder by reason of Patrolman Mulrooney's death. The trial continued for five days before Honorable Michael J. Scott, three days in qualifying a jury for the death penalty and two days in presenting the state's thirty-two witnesses and fifty-four exhibits. Bradley's mother employed Mr. Raymond A. Bruntrager, a most competent and respected lawyer, then specializing in criminal cases, to defend the murder case. At the conclusion of five trial days and before the state had presented all its evidence, particularly all of its medical testimony, Bradley entered a plea of guilty to all three charges and in each case was sentenced to life imprisonment the sentences to run concurrently. In addition, it may be noted that during his imprisonment he has received three additional concurrent sentences of two years each, for, as he said The latter sentences are not involved upon this appeal, in this 27.25--27.26, V.A.M.R., proceeding an attack is made upon the murder and robbery sentences only.
In connection with the appeal there are two subsidiary points: In one point the appellant attacks as void for failure to charge an offense the two robbery indictments in that in the language of the first degree robbery statute they did not charge that the gun and money were taken from Mr. Chip 'against his will,' RSMo 1969, § 560.120, V.A.M.S. This is not a new claim and it is not necessary that the subject be discussed extensively--it is sufficient to note that in 1918 in State v. Massey, 274 Mo. 578, 204 S.W. 541, and more recently in Hodges v. State, Mo., 462 S.W.2d 786, the question was thoroughly explored, particularly when there is an allegation of 'force,' and decided adversely to the appellant. 77 C.J.S. Robbery § 41, p. 478.
The other secondary point is an allegation that in this proceeding the court erred in refusing to honor his application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in which he sought to subpoena as witnesses Crews and Medley, both inmates of the penitentiary. The court, however, examined Bradley at length as to what these witnesses knew or would testify to and it turned out that they would say that when they were all confined in the St. Louis city jail they heard 'jail officials' (jailers) say that an example was to be made of Bradley and he 'had better cop a plea if he could get it.' Obviously, this jailhouse hearsay is not comparable to a court's refusal to call eyewitnesses while a trial is in progress as in State v. Blakeley, Mo., 438 S.W.2d 262. Here the court conducted an inquiry, the offer of proof refutes any possibility of materiality with respect to his pleas of guilty and the court did not err in refusing to subpoena Crews and Medley as witnesses. State v. Bagges, 350 Mo. 984, 169 S.W.2d 407; Burdette v. Settle, 8 Cir., 296 F.2d 687.
In all this background the appellant's principal contention in this 27.25--27.26 proceeding is that his pleas of guilty were not 'understandingly and voluntarily made' for the reasons that the trial court did not determine whether the pleas were voluntary and whether the appellant understood either the charges or the consequences of his pleas. He does not complain that he had incompetent representation, he does imply if not charge, however, that he was improperly induced by his lawyer to plead guilty and that his pleas were made in fear of the infliction of the death penalty. These and other matters are urged in great detail but it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beeman v. State, 56961
...L.Ed.2d 162.' Skaggs v. State, 476 S.W.2d 524, 528(6) (Mo.1972). See also Evans v. State, 477 S.W.2d 94, 97(5) (Mo.1972); Bradley v. State, 476 S.W.2d 499 (Mo.1972); Watson v. State, 475 S.W.2d 8 (Mo.1972); State v. Townsend, 462 S.W.2d 754, 756(1) (Mo.1971); Moore v. State, 461 S.W.2d 881,......
-
Owens v. State
...v. State, (1980) 47 Md.App. 1, 421 A.2d 108; People v. Shillings, (1967) 6 Mich.App. 420, 428-29, 149 N.W.2d 231, 235; Bradley v. State, (1972) Mo., 476 S.W.2d 499, 500-01; State v. Gann, (1969) 254 Or. 549, 566, 463 P.2d 570, 578; Commonwealth v. Jackson, (1974) 457 Pa. 237, 244, 324 A.2d ......
-
Williams v. State, KCD
...condemn the pleas of guilty as not being freely and voluntarily made. Fleck v. State, 443 S.W.2d 100, 103 (Mo.1969); Bradley v. State, 476 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Mo.1972); and North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). Movant was aware of his aberrant behavior and......