Neighbors v. State
Decision Date | 16 July 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 2,No. 57501,57501,2 |
Citation | 496 S.W.2d 807 |
Parties | James Gaylord NEIGHBORS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert A. Iannone, Quinn & Peebles, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard S. Paden, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant was charged in separate informations in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, of possession of a forged and counterfeit check (No. 6670), of stealing (No. 6671), and of burglary and stealing (No. 6672). On July 13, 1970, appellant entered a plea of guilty in No. 6672. Following acceptance of such plea, appellant entered a plea of guilty in No. 6670. Following acceptance of such plea, appellant entered a plea of guilty in No. 6671. No sentences were imposed on July 13, 1970.
On September 2, 1970, appellant was sentenced to three years in No. 6672. Following such sentence, appellant was sentenced to three years in No. 6670, such sentence to 'run consecutive to the sentence imposed in Case No. 6672.' Following such sentence, appellant was sentenced to three years in No. 6671, such sentence 'to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in Case No. 6672.' Later, on September 2, 1970, appellant was permitted to withdraw his plea in No. 6671 and the charge was dismissed.
On July 1, 1971, pursuant to a motion filed under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., an evidentiary hearing was held and the following occurred:
'JAMES GAYLORD NEIGHBORS, being sworn, testified as follows:
'DIRECT EXAMINATION by Mr. Iannone:
'Q Will you state your name?
'A James Neighbors.
Appellant testified that he agreed to enter the pleas of guilty believing a total punishment of three years would be imposed. His request for reduction of sentence was denied.
On November 4, 1971, appellant filed another motion under Rule 27.26, and again asked the trial court 'to enter an Order, whereby said sentences referred to herein will be ordered to be served concurrently.'
On November 8, 1971, the trial court noted that the 'only relief asked for in the present motion is for an order of this Court to make the sentences run concurrently,' and overruled the motion without a hearing. This appeal followed.
The appeal having been taken to this Court prior to January 1, 1972, the effective date of new Article V of the Constitution, we have jurisdiction pursuant to then Art. V, § 3 of the Missouri Constitution.
The ruling of the trial court is proper. There is no authority to impose concurrent sentences in the circumstances of this case. Section 546.480, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.; State v. McClanahan, 418 S.W.2d 71, 74 (Mo.1967); King v. Swenson, 423 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. banc 1968); Daniels v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Woods
...506 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.1974); Wilton Boat Club v. Hazell, 502 S.W.2d 273 (Mo.1973); State v. Perry, 499 S.W.2d 473 (Mo.1973); Neighbors v. State, 496 S.W.2d 807 (Mo.1973); Hamer v. Sullivan, 491 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.1973); Timmerman v. Ankrom, 487 S.W.2d 567 (Mo.1972); Terhune v. Caton, 487 S.W.2d 19......
-
State v. Kennedy, 34947
...sentencing court is without authority to impose concurrent terms. King v. Swenson, 423 S.W.2d 699(17) (Mo. banc 1968); Neighbors v. State, 496 S.W.2d 807(2) (Mo.1973). The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive The one-hundred-year term for assault with intent to kill was within st......