Patton v. State, 56556
| Decision Date | 13 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56556,No. 2,56556,2 |
| Citation | 486 S.W.2d 204 |
| Parties | Mark Douglas PATTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Gregory D. O'Shea, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Mark Douglas Patton has appealed from the denial, after evidentiary hearing, of his motion pursuant to Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate and set aside the judgment of conviction of assault with intent to kill with malice entered following his plea of guilty. The notice of appeal was filed prior to January 1, 1972. Therefore appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
Appellant's only point is that 'The record indicates that appellant's plea (of guilty) was not voluntary and is therefore invalid.' From the argument in appellant's brief we find that this point is based solely on the contention that the trial court did not explain to appellant that 'the insanity defense was available' to him.
At the time appellant entered his plea of guilty he was represented by appointed counsel who was experienced in criminal trials. The prosecuting attorney stated that in the event of a trial the State's evidence would show that appellant and a person named Hulstine had robbed a service station in St. Louis County, and had taken the attendant at the station, Mr. Wirtes, as hostage. Near Festus, in Jefferson County, appellant told Mr. Wirtes to get out of the automobile and to start walking across a field. As Mr. Wirtes was walking away, appellant fired three shots at him, and when he 'started hollering' appellant reloaded his gun and walked near him and shot at him three more times. When asked by the court why he shot Mr. Wirtes, appellant replied, 'Because there wouldn't be no witnesses, that's about the only thing.'
The trial court made a detailed and most complete examination of appellant during which he admitted the factual circumstances of the crime, and also admitted he knew he had a right to a jury trial, and that by pleading guilty he was waiving that right and also the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him and the right against self-incrimination.
Appellant's counsel made a plea to the court for a sentence less than life imprisonment, which the prosecutor recommended, and in the course of that plea advised the court that appellant had used drugs and was an excessive user of alcohol. He also advised the court that appellant had been given psychiatric examination at Malcolm Bliss Hospital in St. Louis, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woods
...v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo.1972); State v. Williams, 486 S.W.2d 221 (Mo.1972); Colbert v. State, 486 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1972); Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.1972); Brown v. State, 485 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.1972); Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972); State v. Sechrest, 485 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.1972......
-
Smith v. State, 56459
...could not be deemed ineffective in failing to inform movant of a possible partial defense of diminished capacity. See Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Mo.1972); Brown v. State, 719 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo.App.1986); Cf., Stewart v. State, 678 S.W.2d 439 The motion court also found that the a......
-
Brown v. State, 50016
...suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for his acts. Stewart was carefully distinguished from Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.1972) where the Supreme Court held there was no duty to advise a defendant of a possible "insanity defense" because a psychiatric eva......
-
Stewart v. State, 46735
...by counsel of the insanity defense or that his waiver of the insanity defense was not voluntarily and knowingly made. In Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Mo.1972) our Supreme Court held the trial court had no duty to advise defendant of the insanity defense as a prerequisite to a valid......