State v. Bradley, 28399
| Decision Date | 18 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 28399,28399 |
| Parties | STATE v. BRADLEY. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Louis L. Hicks and Chas. M. Shaw, Clayton, for appellant.
No appearance by respondent.
One Dorothy McDonald Bradley was brought to trial in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County upon an information charging her with the offense of grand larceny. Upon a trial of the case, the jury returned a verdict finding her guilty of petit larceny and assessing her punishment at imprisonment in the county jail for a term of one year.
Notwithstanding the verdict which had expressly found her guilty of petit larceny, judgment was entered on March 7, 1951, that for her offense of grand larceny she should be committed to the county jail for a term of one year.
Thereafter she appealed to this court, where she contends that the judgment was void and could not be changed or modified by the trial court.
After the transfer of the case to this court, and before argument and submission, the lower court, on application of the prosecuting attorney, entered an order on December 7, 1951, that the judgment be corrected and amended nunc pro tunc so as to recite that for her offense of petit larceny defendant should be committed to the county jail for a term of one year. A certified copy of such order was thereupon filed in this court.
Even though at the time the appeal was taken the judgment indicated on its face that the conviction had been for the offense of grand larceny, there would still appear to be no doubt that appellate jurisdiction is in this court.
In determining where appellate jurisdiction lies, recourse must be had, not alone to the judgment appealed from, but to the entire record of the lower court.
In this case the information charged defendant with the offense of grand larceny as defined by R.S.Mo. 1949, Sec. 560.155, V.A.M.S. Nevertheless the court, in submitting the case, gave instructions upon both grades of larceny as it was authorized to do under R.S.Mo.1949, Sec. 560.245, V.A.M.S. If defendant had been convicted of grand larceny, which is a felony, the Supreme Court would have had exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Const. of 1945, art. V, sec. 3, V.A.M.S. Const. The important thing is, however, that she was not convicted of grand larceny, but of petit larceny as defined by R.S.Mo.1949, Sec. 560.240, V.A.M.S. The verdict so recites; and the judgment conforms to the verdict in respect to the punishment to be assessed, which is the maximum punishment fixed by statute for petit larceny, but is no part of the punishment imposed by statute for grand larceny. The mere erroneous recital in the judgment that the conviction was for the offense of grand larceny could not be allowed to overcome what the whole record conclusively establishes to the contrary; and appellate jurisdiction is therefore vested in this court. State v. Greenspan, 137 Mo. 149, 38 S.W. 582; State v. Murphy, Mo.Sup., 256 S.W. 743; State v. Woodson, 248 Mo. 705, 154 S.W. 705.
If it were true that having been convicted of only petit larceny, defendant had actually been sentenced for the offense of grand larceny, the judgment and sentence would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Supinski
...court. State v. Woodson, 248 Mo. 705, 708, 154 S.W. 705, 706; State v. Greenspan, 137 Mo. 149, 151, 38 S.W. 582, 583; State v. Bradley, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 351, 353[2, 3]. The case is before us upon the transcript of the record; neither the State nor the defendant has filed a brief. Out rev......
-
State v. Friedman
...which on motion of the Attorney General transferred the appeal to this court, where appellate jurisdiction is vested. State v. Bradley, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 351, 353. After the appeal was transferred the Prosecuting Attorney did not enter his appearance or participate in the hearing, and we ......
-
State v. Ciarelli, 23665
...grants of appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, is in this court. State v. Harold, 364 Mo. 1052, 271 S.W.2d 527; State v. Bradley, Mo.App., 247 S.W.2d 351. According to the evidence, on August 5, 1960, between the hours of 12:00 a. m. and 7:30 a. m., the Lincoln Junior High School, 2......
-
Haney v. Eyman
...render judgment or pronounce sentence for another or different offense. State v. Bridge, 3 Utah 2d 281, 282 P.2d 1043; State v. Bradley, 247 S.W.2d 351 (Missouri); Bandy v. Hehn, 10 Wyo. 167, 67 P. 979; Ex parte Dela., 25 Nev. 346, 60 P. In State v. Bridge, supra, the court stated: 'Althoug......