State v. Austin
| Decision Date | 28 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 42955,42955 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 42 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Odessa AUSTIN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Walter L. Brady, Jr., Lee, O'Hanlon & Brady, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a conviction, by a jury, of murder in the second degree for which he was sentenced to a twenty (20) year term of imprisonment. We affirm.
On March 19, 1980, defendant was found guilty of the shooting death of James Gully. The jury assessed punishment at twenty (20) years. The trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report. Based upon the favorable findings and conclusions in that report, defendant requested the court to place him on probation. The trial court acknowledged the commendations contained in the report and stated:
He (defendant), having committed murder in the second degree which the jury found to be such as to assess twenty years, and while the people that he had dealt with think highly of him, the Court has to consider that this is a homicide, ...
The trial court then denied defendant's request for probation and sentenced him to a twenty (20) year term of imprisonment.
Defendant's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying him probation in light of the favorable pre-sentence investigation report. We disagree. The denial of probation by a trial court is not reviewable on appeal absent a showing of an extreme abuse of discretion. See, United States v. Rifen, 634 F.2d 1142, 1144 (8th Cir. 1980). In Smith v. State, 517 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Mo.1974), the Missouri Supreme Court held "... the decision to grant or withhold probation in the first instance is entirely within the discretion of the (trial) court; ... and appellate courts have no power to review or revise such a decision." The result in Smith was based upon § 549.141, RSMo. 1969 which explicitly prohibited appellate review of the denial of probation. Section 549.141 has since been repealed (Laws 1977, p. 658, Sec. 1, effective Jan. 1, 1979) and the provisions forbidding appellate review have not been re-enacted.
Defendant cites Hardin v. State, 577 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Mo.App.1979) which stated Hardin is of no help to defendant. That part of § 549.141 which was superseded by Morrissey dealt with review of the revocation of probation, not the initial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Geer, WD
...in the first instance, without looking over the trial court's shoulder at the exercise of that discretion. See also State v. Austin, 620 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App.), decided by the Eastern District on July 28, The court in the present case properly recognized the possibility of probation and clearl......
-
State v. Carrillo, 20514
...State v. Priesmeyer, 719 S.W.2d 873, 876 (Mo.App.1986); State v. Keller, 685 S.W.2d 605, 606 (Mo.App.1985); State v. Austin, 620 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1981). In none of these cases did the defendant attempt to appeal after entering a guilty plea. A defendant may appeal from the judgment and......
-
State v. Simmons, WD
...is authoritatively declined under Benson v. State, supra. At this point it is appropriate to note that defendant cites State v. Austin, 620 S.W.2d 42 (Mo.App., E.D.1981) as authority for the proposition that a claim of "extreme abuse of discretion" in refusing to grant probation is subject ......
-
State v. Brown, 34512
...and is not subject to appellate review." State v. Phroper, 619 S.W.2d 83, 90 (Mo.App.1981). Even under the scope of State v. Austin, 620 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1981) of the Eastern District the appellant's point would be without merit. Unlike State v. Phroper, supra, where the trial judge mi......