State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, No. 61194
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | SIMEONE |
| Citation | 576 S.W.2d 744 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. George A. PEACH, Circuit Attorney, City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Relator, v. The Honorable Lackland H. BLOOM, Judge, Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 61194 |
| Decision Date | 16 February 1979 |
Page 744
Louis, State of Missouri, Relator,
v.
The Honorable Lackland H. BLOOM, Judge, Circuit Court of
City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Respondent.
Page 745
James K. Steitz, Thomas M. Daly, Asst. Circuit Attys., St. Louis, for relator.
James W. Whitney, Jr., Clayton, for respondent.
SIMEONE, Judge.
This is an original writ in prohibition to prohibit the respondent from entering an order denying the relator's motion to prove a prior conviction in a cause pending in the respondent's court involving an offense committed prior to January 1, 1979.
The issue in this case is whether the Second Offender Act, § 556.280, RSMo 1969, which was repealed by the new criminal code, RSMo Supp.1977, effective January 1, 1979 is applicable to an offense committed prior to the effective date of the Code when the defendant is tried after such effective date.
The facts are not complex. On June 8, 1978, James Harris was charged with assault with intent to kill with malice and with one prior conviction. The offense for which he was charged was committed on May 9, 1978. On January 2, 1979 the cause was assigned to the respondent-judge. The relator sought to prove that Harris was a second offender subject to the provisions of the Second Offender Act, § 556.280. The attorney for Harris objected to proceeding under that act on the grounds that (1) the Second Offender Act was repealed effective December 31, 1978, and (2) the "persistent" and "dangerous offender" provisions of the new criminal code, § 558.016 effective January 1, 1979 are not applicable to an offense committed prior to the code. Respondent ruled that unless prohibited from doing so, he would deny the State's motion to prove a prior conviction. On January 5, 1979, relator filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which granted a preliminary writ and recommended transfer to this court prior to opinion. We granted transfer. We have jurisdiction under Art. V, § 10, Mo.Const.
The precise issue which we must determine is whether the Second Offender Act, § 556.280 which was repealed is applicable to a defendant who allegedly committed an offense prior to January 1, 1979 but who is not tried until after that date so that the trial court may utilize the provisions of the Second Offender Act.
Relator argues that the provisions of the repealed Second Offender Act are still applicable to criminal offenses occurring prior to January 1, 1979 when trial occurs thereafter because § 556.031(3) of the new Code provides:
"3. The provisions of this code do not apply to or govern the construction of and punishment for any offense committed prior to January 1, 1979, or the construction and application of any defense to a prosecution for such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Westfall v. Mason, No. 61499
...in denying the state leave to seek imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, prohibition lies. See State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. banc The principal question for our determination is whether on retrial the death penalty under § 565.008, RSMo 1978 is barred as possible......
-
State v. Newlon, No. 61798
...the time of the murder. See, State v. Lute, 608 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Mo. banc 1980). This Court in Lute, citing State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc 1979), stated, "... the 'provisions of law existing prior to the new criminal code (are) applicable to all offenses committ......
-
State v. Brown, No. 63143
...Holdings, consistent therewith, may be found in State v. Harris, 612 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Mo.App.1981), and State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc Appellant further attacks his sentence as being cruel and unusual, in that the sixty-five year sentence without probation or pa......
-
State v. Lute, No. 61430.
...misstated the applicable law and incorrectly submitted the issue of appellant's criminal responsibility. In State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc 1979), we held that the "provisions of law existing prior to the new criminal code are applicable to all offenses committed......
-
State ex rel. Westfall v. Mason, No. 61499
...in denying the state leave to seek imposition of the death penalty. Accordingly, prohibition lies. See State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. banc The principal question for our determination is whether on retrial the death penalty under § 565.008, RSMo 1978 is barred as possible......
-
State v. Newlon, No. 61798
...the time of the murder. See, State v. Lute, 608 S.W.2d 381, 383 (Mo. banc 1980). This Court in Lute, citing State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc 1979), stated, "... the 'provisions of law existing prior to the new criminal code (are) applicable to all offenses committ......
-
State v. Brown, No. 63143
...Holdings, consistent therewith, may be found in State v. Harris, 612 S.W.2d 898, 900 (Mo.App.1981), and State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc Appellant further attacks his sentence as being cruel and unusual, in that the sixty-five year sentence without probation or pa......
-
State v. Lute, No. 61430.
...misstated the applicable law and incorrectly submitted the issue of appellant's criminal responsibility. In State ex rel. Peach v. Bloom, 576 S.W.2d 744, 747 (Mo. banc 1979), we held that the "provisions of law existing prior to the new criminal code are applicable to all offenses committed......