Robinson v. State, 57574
| Citation | 491 S.W.2d 314 |
| Decision Date | 12 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57574,No. 2,57574,2 |
| Parties | George B. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Michael P. Casey, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Michael L. Boicourt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal by George B. Robinson from an order overruling a motion filed under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate a first degree robbery conviction and 5-year sentence, entered upon a plea of guilty.
Appellant claims that he pleaded guilty on condition and advice of counsel that the charge would be reduced to stealing from the person, for which he would receive a 3-year sentence; that if he refused to plead guilty and asked for a jury trial he would receive a sentence of 30 years or more because he had been previously convicted; that his attorney coached him to tell the judge that he had not been promised anything to plead guilty, if asked, for otherwise it would 'mess up the record.' Appellant so testified. There was no other testimony. Appellant claims that since his testimony was uncontradicted the court erred in refusing to grant his motion.
The record at the time appellant was sentenced clearly and unquestionably demonstrates that he pleaded guilty to first degree robbery voluntarily with full knowledge and appreciation of the nature of the charge, the range of punishment and his right to a trial by jury; that the minimum sentence on this charge was 5 years and that he 'expected' when he pleaded guilty that he would receive a 5-year sentence. The record shows that in open court the prosecutor stated the facts, which demonstrated appellant's guilt of first degree robbery, and that appellant acknowledged that the facts stated were the true facts; and that in answer to a question asked by the trial judge appellant stated that no one had promised him anything whatsoever in consideration for his plea of guilty. At the 27.26 hearing appellant testified that in so answering the sentencing judge's question appellant was neither lying nor mistaken--and that he thoroughly understood what the judge said to him.
The trial court's finding that appellant 'amply and cogently understood that five years would be imposed under said plea' is not clearly erroneous. On the contrary, the finding is strongly supported by record evidence indicating that instead of being misled by false promises appellant entered his plea with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. Barnes
...only admits his guilt, but also admits all of the facts charged. Hurse v. State, 527 S.W.2d 34, 36 (Mo.App.1975) (citing Robinson v. State, 491 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo.1973)).10 Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit has held that a conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, acts as a complete defense to ......
-
State v. Hunter
...plea itself forms a factual basis for the guilty plea. Milligan v. State, 772 S.W.2d 736, 738-39 (Mo.App.1989). See also Robinson v. State, 491 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo.1973). Defendant directs our attention to that portion of his guilty plea where he stated he assumed Mrs. Hodges died of a hear......
-
State v. Rachwal
...facts alleged by the government"); McCarther v. State, 211 Kan. 152, 505 P.2d 773, 774 (1973) ("every fact alleged"); Robinson v. State, 491 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo.1973) ("all of the facts charged"); State v. Cook, 344 N.W.2d 487, 488 (N.D.1984) ("the facts alleged in the criminal complaint");......
-
State v. Thompson, 663A84
...Cir.1970); In the Matter of Colson, 412 A.2d 1160 (D.C.App.1979); McCarther v. State, 211 Kan. 152, 505 P.2d 773 (1973); Robinson v. State, 491 S.W.2d 314 (Mo.1973); State v. Bargen, 219 Neb. 416, 363 N.W.2d 393 (1985); State v. Cook, 344 N.W.2d 487 (N.D.1984); Commonwealth v. Petrillo, 255......